The Court held that delays in filing appeals should be evaluated with a liberal approach if merits are significant, underlining the importance of ensuring justice over procedural technicalities.

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

Both the captioned Appeals are filed by the Appellate against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Delhi, (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), dated 27/03/2025& 01/04/2025 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, an Intimation orders have been passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 28/02/2016 for Assessment Year 2014-15 and on 07/03/2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16 respectively.Aggrieved by those Intimations, Appellate preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 04/05/2024 with a delay of 2,959 days 2,585 days respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/03/2025 and 01/04/2025, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Appellate on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the orders dated 27/03/2025 and 01/04/2025, Appellatepreferred the captioned appeals.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellate vehemently submitted that the Appellateis an Educational Society running a Senior Secondary School in the remote area of Hisar District at Barwala, Haryana, wherein the students of rural area are educated. The trustees of the Appellate are not well conversant in the legal process. Further contended that for the years under consideration, the claim of the Appellate was denied u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act without affording opportunity to the Assessee. Further, the Appellate has also preferred a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which has not been disposed of by the CPC till date. The Appellate has also brought to our notice that the exemption claimed by the Appellate trust u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act on identical facts have been already considered and allowed by the Department for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020- 21, 2021-2022 and 2022-23.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), while condoning the delay of more than 2 years held that although a delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the case’s merit cannot be discarded solely on the technical grounds of limitation, a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs substantial justice. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under:-

“ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:

13. In the present case, the contentions of the appellant, on first blush appears to be attractive, inasmuch as the State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation. There is no doubt that all parties, whether or not State under Article 123 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.

14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.

15. In the present case, the filing of the Review Petition before the First Appellate Court was with a delay of two years and four months and the Second Appeal before the High Court was delayed by about a year from the date of the dismissal of the Review Petition i.e., 30.09.2019. Pausing for a moment, it is necessary to indicate that in the present case, the dispute over title of a land is not between private parties, but rather between the private party and the State. Moreover, when the land in question was taken possession of by the State and allotted for public purpose to the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate and has continued in t