ITAT condoned delay of 346 days observing law and provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation.
In a recent judgment, ITAT Rajkot condoned the delay of 346 days in filing appeal observing that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law because law and provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4583 (2025) (05) abcaus.in ITAT
In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The appeal of the assessee was barred by limitation by 346 days. The assessee also moved a petition requesting the ITAT to condone the delay.
It was submitted that delay of 346 days had occurred because the assessee was a 7th standard educated and not verse with income tax proceedings and small businessman. It was explained that on advice of local person that assessee earned less than below Rs. 2,50,000/- therefore, he needs not file income tax return, and hence he acted on his advice.
It was further submitted that thereafter assessee had received demand notice from Department for depositing cash during demonetization period than assessee contracted local tax consultant who dealing with tax matter and handed over said notice. Whatever notices were received by assessee were immediately forwarded to said local consultant. Thereafter the said consultant filed appeal before CIT(A) who unadmitted appeal due to non payment of advance tax u/s 249(4) of the Act and the impugned order was passed.
It was also submitted that at the time of filing appeal, the assessee for the purpose of service of notice of hearing has given email id. in Form-35. Thereafter assessee contracted other tax consultant who advised to file appeal before Tribunal. Then assessee immediately filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.
The Counsel for the assessee, submitted that assessee had explained the sufficient reason and cause for delay of 346 days. Therefore, in the interest of justice the delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be decided on merit.
On the other hand, the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation.
The Tribunal observed that CIT(A) had not admitted appeal for non-payment of advance tax. Besides, assessee was a small businessman and not well versed with tax matter.
The Tribunal opined that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law and provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that 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.
The Tribunal opined that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay, was convincing, and the reason would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal of the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that as per assessee, his income was below the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax, therefore, assessee did not file return of income and did not pay advance tax, hence provisions of section 249(4)(b) did not attract; as alleged by CIT(A).
The Tribunal further noted that CIT(A) had not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal, as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Hence, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee, to plead his case before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal noted that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case.
Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- UCO Bank Concurrent Auditor Online Empanelment for FY 2025-26
- Section 87A rebate available for short-term capital gains – ITAT
- Homebuyer entitled to possession if their name included in list of financial creditors
- GSTN Advisory to file pending returns before expiry of three years on 01.10.2025
- Insurance premium paid for partner of the firm held as allowable expenditure
