MUBIM BEGAN,ETAWAH V. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH, ETAWAH

ITA 273/AGR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mubim Began, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) which had dismissed his earlier appeal as barred by limitation. The dismissal was due to the assessee's failure to file the appeal within the stipulated time, attributed to the previous accountant's oversight in managing the email notifications from the Income-tax Portal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and condoned it, emphasizing the principle that substantial justice should not be denied on technical grounds. The ITAT set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are substantially complied with.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713198 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHIL MAHESHWARI
• Keywords: Set aside; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE :SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.273/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mubim Began, 68, Hui Ganj, Pachraha, Akalganj, Etawah (UP). Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah. PAN : CEOPB3624K (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10137833 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation. Assessee by Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, CA Department by Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.273/Agr/2025 2 | P a g e 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 17.05.2025 against the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 by a delay of about 26 days. The reasons mentioned in the delay condonation application filed by assessee are that the impugned order was uploaded on Income-tax Portal and the email Id registered at the said portal was that of assessee’s previous accountant, who left the job. The assessee was advised to file an appeal by his consultant, who came to know about the impugned order on login to Income Tax Portal on 07.05.2025. Owing to this reason the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period of limitation. Prayed to condone the delay. 3. Considering the aforesaid reasons, given in the delay condonation application and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay in filing this appeal. The delay is accordingly condoned. 4. The aforesaid appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to many other grounds, that impugned order has been passed ex parte without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. Perused the records and heard learned representative of the assessee and learned departmental representative. 6. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 04.05.2022 against the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.273/Agr/2025 3 | P a g e assessment order dated 25.03.2022. The assessee neither filed any delay condonation application nor gave any reason for delay in response to the letter dated 08.02.2025 issued by ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. 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 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. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to file delay condonation application before the ld. CIT(Appeals), assigning the reasons for delay, if any, in filing the first appeal. 7. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) with the direction to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall file delay condonation application before ld. CIT(Appeals), giving Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.273/Agr/2025 4 | P a g e reasons for delay, if any. Needless to say that the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30.07.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra Printed from counselvise.com "