Reasons assigned for explaining the condonation of delay are to be construed with a justice oriented approach – ITAT
In a recent judgment, ITAT Chandigarh condoned the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) due to mistake of counsel observing that Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4377 (2025) (01) abcaus.in ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal.
The appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) was delayed by 62 days. The appellant assessee filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 249 (3).
The assessee submitted that the delay happened on account of non filing of the appeal by the authorized representative. The assessee had handed over all necessary papers to the authorized representative, who did not file the appeal and failed to give any explanation as to why it was not filed in time. Relying on large number of decisions the assessee prayed for condonation of delay.
However, the CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on account of being time barred.
The Tribunal observed that the expression “sufficient cause” used in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, provides powers to the Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, the same expression has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
The Tribunal further observed that whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, Hon’ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally.
The Tribunal noted that on the issue of condonation of delay the Hon’ble Supreme court has observed as under:
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.
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
The Tribunal also observed one authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in which their Lordship has observed as under;
“Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finislitium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause.
There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”.
The Tribunal held that Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the condonation of delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice oriented approach.
The Tribunal examined the application of the assessee and opined that that assessee had not made the appeal time barred deliberately. He had not adopted delay a strategy to litigate with the Department because by making the appeal barred, assessee will not gain anything. It was a bonafide mistake at the end of the assessee while interacting with his counsel. Therefore, the CIT(A) for the assessee ought to have adopted a justice oriented approach by resolving the controversy on merit instead of dismissing the appeal in limine.
The Tribunal further observed that a large addition was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by not condoning the delay. The penalty in the shape of tax liability on this addition was far disproportionate to the negligence even if committed by the assessee by making his appeal time barred by 62 days.
Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority and set aside the impugned order with direction to CIT(A) to decide the appeal within four months from receipt of this order.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- AO to give list of judgments he wish to rely in taking adverse view against assessee.
- Changes in Speed Post Tariff & new features from 01.10.2025. students to get 10 % discount
- U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Empanelment of lnternal Auditor for 2025-26 & 2026-27
- A mere error in exercise of jurisdiction would not vitiate legality or validity of proceedings
- Writ petitions not to be entertained in cases of alleged fraudulent availment of ITC
