आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 899/CHD/2024 (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91) / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The ITO, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal.

èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAJPD5851H अपीलाथ(cid:568)/Appellant (cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal against the order of ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’]

dated 18.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2008-09.

2. The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by 38 days. In order to explain the delay, assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application, main reason assigned by the assessee is that due to inadvertent reason, the e-mail containing the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) was directed to the spam/junk folder of the e-mail of the assessee. Hence, he was unaware of the communication of the said order. The assessee just made a routine check about the pending matter and only then it came to his notice that his appeal was dismissed by the CIT (Appeals).

3. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no deliberate attempt to make the appeal time barred. It was a bonafide mistake.

3.1 The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand, contended that assessee should be more vigilant in taking care of income tax proceedings and therefore, delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned.

4. 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 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 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