When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken

When period of delay is not very huge and involve huge monetary liability on the assessee, a lenient approach should be taken

In a recent judgment, High Court held that when period of delay was not very huge a lenient approach ought to have been taken as it involved huge monetary liability on the assessee.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5071 (2026) (03) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the petitioner submitted return for the relevant assessment year. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed major portion of the interest claimed under expenses and added the same to the income of the petitioner and the total income was assessed as such.

Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the assessment order with a request to condone the delay of 34 days in filing the same. The CIT(A) rejected the said appeal order on the sole ground that the petitioner failed to explain the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal properly.

Aggrieved, the assesse filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.

The High Court observed that the only ground for rejection was that, the reason furnished by the petitioner as explanation for the delay was not convincing. The reason stated by the petitioner was that, the delay occurred due to the ill-health of the Chartered Accountant. However, this contention was rejected as no medical certificates or documentary evidence were produced to prove the illness. Thus, it was found that no sufficient cause was established for explaining the delay

The High Court observed that as the period of delay was not very huge and it was only 34 days, a lenient approach ought to have been taken by the appellate authority. As far as the appeal submitted by the petitioner was concerned, it contains serious contentions with regard to the disallowance of certain claims raised by the petitioner and it involves huge monetary liability.

The High Court further opined that it is always in the best interest of justice that, as much as possible, a proper opportunity should be extended to the aggrieved party to get his grievances considered on merits. Only in cases of gross negligence, strict conditions regarding the condonation of delay is to be implemented. Since, in the instant case, the period of delay was not considerable, an indulgence can be shown.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to restore the appeal and consider the appeal on merits by treating that the petitioner had explained the delay properly.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT