Substantial justice should prevail over technical delays in appeal processes, allowing for reconsideration of cases on their merits.

ORDER

PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. :

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.02.2024, of the learned Addl./JCIT(A), Udaipur, relating to assessment year 2013-2014.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing, trading, export import of minerals, ferro alloys and ores. It filed it’s return of income on 31.12.2013 declaring income of Rs.15,51,050/-. The case of the assessee company has been selected for scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed all the requisite details i.e., copy of computation of income, copy of audit report, balance sheet, profit and loss account, details of major expenses, balance confirmation of sundry creditors and unsecured loan party, copy of service tax and TDS return working, details of payment made u/sec.43B and such other details during the course of assessment proceedings, which are placed on record. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment noted that assessee company had incurred interest expenses of Rs.8,21,377/-, which, according to him, not allowable either u/sec.36(1)(iii) or u/sec.37 of the Act. Therefore, he called for explanation of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 03.11.2015. In response to the said notice, the assessee company has furnished written submissions. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee company, disallowed the interest expenses of Rs.8,21,377/- and added the same to the returned income of the assessee i.e., Rs.15,51,050/- and computed the total income of the assessee company at Rs.23,72,430/- vide order dated 30.11.2015 passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 1146 days. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the it had forwarded documents for preparation of appeal to it’s Authorised Representative and inadvertently, the said documents are misplaced and as such it could not be filed in-time. He submitted that the delay in submission of appeal is on account of mistake at the office of Counsel of Assessee and there is no negligence on the part of the assessee company. The assessee company also submitted that his Authorised Representative has filed affidavit too for condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A) by admitting the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on oath. However, the learned CIT(A) has not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee company with respect to the delay in filing of the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

5. During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the orders of the authorities below are not in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer without considering the explanation offered by the assessee made the impugned addition of Rs.8,21,377/- u/sec.36(1)(iii) of the Act which is unjustified. And on appeal before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) without appreciating the explanation of the assessee with regard to delay in filing of the appeal before him and without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal of the assessee company as not maintainable on the ground of delay and thereby, the order of the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that one more opportunity may please be provided to the assessee company to substantiate it’s case as it has got fai