ITAT allows appeal delay, prioritizes substantial justice over procedural technicalities.

Shri Hemendra Lilachand Shah Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-5 (2) (3), Ahmedabad.

Shri Hemendra Lilachand Shah Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-5 (2) (3), Ahmedabad. - TMI Issues: Delay in filing appeal before ITAT, Condonation of delay, Filing appeal in electronic mode

Delay in filing appeal before ITAT:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 874 days before the ITAT. The assessee explained that the delay was due to financial crises and the staff member responsible for handling the order had left the organization. The AR argued that the delay should be condoned as the assessee had a fair chance of success and would suffer due to procedural technicalities if the delay was not condoned. The DR opposed the condonation of the delay. The ITAT considered various legal precedents emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach in condoning delays. It was noted that the delay of 38 days occurred due to the misplaced order copy, which was later found and sent to counsel for preparing the appeal. The ITAT, following the principles of substantial justice, concluded that the delay in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned.

Condonation of delay:
The ITAT referred to legal judgments highlighting the importance of advancing substantial justice while interpreting the expression "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. The tribunal emphasized that no hard and fast rule could be laid down in such matters and that each case should be considered on its merits. Considering the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay, the ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned to ensure substantial justice.

Filing appeal in electronic mode:
The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non-est, citing the failure to file the appeal in electronic mode as required by a CBDT notification. The ITAT noted that the requirement of filing the appeal electronically was a new procedural requirement. The assessee had filed the appeal within the time limit but in paper form instead of electronically. The ITAT held that failure to comply with the procedural requirement should not hinder justice. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the ITAT emphasized that procedural laws should be subservient to justice. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the issue for fresh adjudication, allowing the ground of appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, considering the delay in filing the appeal, the principles of substantial justice, and the procedural requirements for filing the appeal in electronic mode.