2024 (8) TMI 547 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay 1638 days in filing the first appeal before CIT(A) - delay was caused by due to assessee s bonafide belief that grievances raised electronically shall be resolved - HELD THAT - We notice that the statutory period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) is 30 days - Section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 1638 days. The assessee, submitted its response against the said outstanding demand on the income tax portal on 11.06.2019 continued pursuing the same till it received the rejection of his prayer for rectification on 01.08.2023. It appears that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that his grievances raised through the income tax portal shall be resolved in due course of time. This expectation of assessee caused such a huge delay in filing first appeal. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation stated hereinabove, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay in filing the first appeal before the first appellate authority. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e learned CIT(A) stands condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) dismissing the assessee's appeal due to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the same. The appellant raised grievances against an intimation order received in May 2019, but due to a belief that electronically raised grievances would be resolved, the appeal before the CIT(A) could not be filed within the statutory period. The delay amounted to 1638 days, and the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The statutory period for filing an appeal before the CIT(A) is 30 days, but the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. In this case, the delay of 1638 days was not condoned by the CIT(A). The appellant continued to pursue the matter through the income tax portal until the rejection of the rectification request, believing that the grievances raised would be resolved in due course, leading to the significant delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal emphasized the principle that substantial justice should not be denied due to technical aberrations and that the provisions regarding condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally. The objective of the time period for filing appeals is to expedite proceedings and advance the cause of justice. Considering the circumstances and the bonafide belief of the appellant, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh order on merit in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The order was pronounced in open court on the specified date.