MOHINDER SINGH & CO,PATRAN V. ITO WARD SAMANA, PATIALA

ITA 251/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

Mohinder Singh & Co., engaged in the trading of liquor, appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had dismissed their earlier appeal as time-barred by 289 days. The assessee explained that the delay was due to technical glitches in the ITAT portal and issues with receiving the penalty notice, which was sent to their tax consultant's email and possibly to a closed business premises. The Tribunal, referencing several Supreme Court decisions, emphasized the need to advance substantial justice over technical considerations and decided to condone the delay, allowing the case to be heard on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787184 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Indian Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH CAJLA
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 251/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mohinder Singh & Co., Patiala Road, Patran, Patiala. Vs The ITO, Ward, Samana. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABLFM2789E अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Cajla, CA Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 VIRTUAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 23.07.2024 passed for assessment year 2020-21. 2. The Registry has pointed out that appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 49 days. In order to explain the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 2 delay, assessee has filed an application wherein it has been submitted that there were technical glitches in the Portal of the ITAT. The assessee was not in a position to upload appeal and enclosures, hence, it was brought to IT Cell and ultimately those defects were removed. 3. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. 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. We may make reference to the following Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 3 observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 4 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. 4. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 dated 03.09.1998. It reads 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 5 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 vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. 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”. 5. In the light of above, if we peruse the explanation of the assessee, then it would be discernable that assessee has been prevented by sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to decide it on merit. 6. It emerges out from the record that appeal of the assessee was time barred before ld.CIT (Appeals) by 289 days. The ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal being time barred. The assessee has filed copy of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 6 application submitted before the CIT (Appeals) and submitted that assessee firm was engaged in trading of liquor. It was granted a licence only for one year i.e. for 2019-20. Hence its business could only be run for one year. It has closed the business and vacated the premises. The partners of the assessee were scattered down. The penalty notice was not served upon the assessee because it was served on the e-mail of the Tax Consultant and physical copy, if any was sent to the assessee then the business premises was already closed. 7. On due consideration of the above explanation of the assessee, we are of the view that for want of complete information about levy of penalty, it could not file appeal well in time. The penalty order is an ex-parte order, therefore, considering the punishment in the share of penalty imposed upon the assessee vis-à-vis inaction at the end of the assessee, we are of the view that penalty is disproportionate to the negligence, if any committed by the assessee in not filing the appeal well in time. Therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and direct the ld.CIT (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merit within a period Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.251/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 7 of six months from the receipt of this order. Accordingly, order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) is set aside and issues are relegated to the file of ld. First Appellate Authority for adjudication on merit. This appeal be decided after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee within six months from the receipt of this order. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 19 th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "