AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-26 [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT (A)” passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.
The brief facts as culled out from the order of authorities below are that the assessee has filed return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring loss of Rs.51,941/-. As per intimation u/s 143(1), the income has been computed at income of Rs.69,41,550/- after making the addition/adjustment of Rs.70,00,000/- on account of enhancement of business income. It is stated that in the intimation u/s 143(1), some adjustments were made, which were apparently wrong and hence rectification application made u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee which is allegedly resulted into the dismissal.
Aggrieved by the adjustment made in intimation u/s 143(1), the assessee filed an appeal before the Id. CIT(A) with a delay of 1356 days. The assessee has made an application before the Id. CIT(A) for seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee was of the bona-fide belief that the mistake in the intimation u/s 143(1) with regard to the wrong adjustment would be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. Since, the appellant was pursuing rectification and the delay has occurred in filing of the appeal because of the said bonafide belief and the delay was neither intentional nor willful and there was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Id. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the grounds taken for condonation of delay and has dismissed the appeal in limine.
Aggrieved by the impugned order the assessee is in appeal and raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Intimation passed u/s 143(1) by the CPC/AO is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition/adjustment made by the assessing officer/CPC in the Intimation u/s 143(1) of Rs. 70,00,000/- on account of enhancement of income Rs. 67,14,00
3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition/adjustment of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by the assessing officer/CPC in the Intimation u/s 143(1) is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1) of the Act.
4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal of the assessee.
5.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without adjudicating the appeal on merits."
We have heard the Id. AR as well as the Id. DR.
The Id. AR at the very outset, submitted that refusal to condone the delay, in the given facts and circumstances by the Id. CIT(A) has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Assessee needs to be given an opportunity to present its case against wrong adjustment made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and the matter may be restored to the file of the AO and the delay before the Id. CIT(A) needs to be condoned in the interest of justice.
The Id. DR on the other hand, while opposing the condonation of delay has left it to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the submission made on behalf of the assessee.
We have considered the submissions and examined the records. The Id. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal and refused to condone the delay by making observations in para 3 to 5 of the impugned order extracted below as under:
'3. Along with this appeal appellant has also filed application for the condonation of delay as there was a delay of 1356 days. The appellant submitted that there is delay of 1356 days in filing of the present appeal. The appellant stated that "In the Intimation u/s 143(1) some prima facie adjustments were made, which were apparently wrong. Therefore, for the rectification of the same the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. The assessee was of the bonafide belief that the mistake would be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. However, the same was not rectified. Hence, the assessee is filing this appeal now. So, the delay in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but due to the bonafide and sufficient reasons shown hereinabove. In the interest of justice, delay be condoned. So, you are requested to condone the delay."
4.The application for condonation of delay has been examined in light of the provisions of Section 249(2) and 249(3) of the Act, and relevant judicial precedents. As per Section 249(2), appeal should be presented within 30 days of the following date: (a) Where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty, the date of service of notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty. (b) In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may admit belated application on sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, giving the reasons for the delay, along with necessary evidences should be filed with Form No. 35 (i.e., form of appeal). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can condone the delay in filing the appeal if genuine reason exists for delay.
According to section 249(3) of the Act "the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period."
The word 'sufficient cause' which is mentioned in the section 249(3) of the Act means an adequate and enough reason which prevented the appellant to file an appeal within limitation. Here in the present case reasons stated by the appellant for condonation of delay are not acceptable as there is no genuine hardship as mentioned by the appellant. The appellant is negligent and remained inactive and not given justified ground to condone the delay. The appellant has also failed to substantiate its claim with supporting evidence, which are the cause for the delay in filing of appeal. The application for condonation does not constitute the sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing of appeal.
5.In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961."
We have noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji & Ors [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) dated 19.02.1987, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
As is evident from the extract of the impugned order reproduced by us in the preceding para, the reason for delay given by the assessee was pursuing rectification application against the adjustment in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee/appellant has filed a rectification application with a belief that the wrong adjustment will be rectified.
Since, the rectification application stated to have been dismissed and for that reason, according to the assessee, the delay has occurred in filing the appeal against intimation u/s 143(1) and that reason for delay has not found favour with the Id. CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal in limine.
It is the constitutional mandate that only lawful tax can be recovered, or a citizen/assessee is bound to pay only to lawful tax for the income earned. In our opinion, while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji & Ors. (supra), the reason given by the assessee/appellant, in the facts and circumstances, seems to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The averments made in the application for seeking of condonation of delay with the regard to the filing of the rectification and dismissal of the same has not been controverted on behalf of the Revenue. For these reasons, we find it a fit case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Since, the grievance of the assessee is against the wrong adjustment made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. The end of justice shall be met if the matter is restored to the file of the Id. AO for deciding it afresh after considering the submissions of the assessee regarding the adjustment made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act.
The assessee is also directed to present his case with in a period of 60 days of this order.
The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.