आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपरु म(cid:581)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR (cid:302)ी पाथ (cid:91) सारथी चौधर(cid:547), Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय के सम¢

BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.770/RPR/2025 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष (cid:91) /Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Sardar Fancy Stores Cinema Line, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh-491 441 PAN: AAKFS6762M .......अपीलाथ(cid:568) / Appellant बनाम / V/s.

The Income Tax Officer-1, Ranjandgaon (C.G.)

……(cid:292)×यथ(cid:568) / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 11.04.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. When the matter was called for hearing none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

3. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 164 days. Elaborating the reasons leading to the said delay, the assessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit dated 23.12.2025, wherein it is stated as follows:

On perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, it is observed that in Form 35, there is specific column on the personal information mentioning “whether notices /communication may be sent on email?” and the assessee has given reply as “No” which means there is an option given to the assessee for receiving of the notice/communication through email or not. In this case, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was sent by the department through registered email id but since the assessee has opted as “No”, therefore, there was no checking of such mail and therefore consequent non-receipt of the said order resulting in the delay.

4. The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection as regards the condonation of delay.

5. Considering the contents of the condonation petition a/w. affidavit on the ground of limitation, I am of the considered view that such delay has been caused due to technical issue arising from Form 35 itself and it cannot be attributed for any deliberate or malafide conduct on the part of the assessee since there was no receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by the assessee physically while the assessee has already opted as “No” as observed herein before and for that reason, the said delay has occurred. In so far the delay is concerned, it would be relevant to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, had observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that 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 de