Case Law Details
Meenakshi Infrastructures (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Belated Payment of Tribunal’s Cost Not Fatal – CIT(A) Erred in Dismissing Appeal -ITAT Restores Case with Additional Cost of ₹20,000 -Substantive Justice Over Technicality –
Hyderabad Tribunal dealt with whether CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeal solely because assessee deposited Tribunal-directed cost belatedly.
The case was in second round of litigation. Earlier, ITAT in ITA No.353/Hyd/2024 (order dated 11.07.2024) had remanded matter to CIT(A) on condition that assessee must pay ₹5,000 to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within one month. Assessee, however, deposited it only on 21.03.2025, beyond stipulated time. CIT(A) dismissed appeal as not maintainable due to late compliance.
On further appeal, Assessee argued that delay was inadvertent, without mala fides, & substantive justice should not be denied for such a small procedural lapse. Revenue did not strongly oppose.
Tribunal observed that cost had eventually been paid, though belatedly. Since objective of cost condition stood satisfied, dismissal of appeal on technical grounds would defeat justice. However, to balance equities & discourage recurrence, Tribunal imposed additional cost of ₹20,000 payable to PMNRF within one month, and restored matter back to CIT(A) for decision on merits after giving due opportunity. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructures (P) Ltd (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), Hyderabad-11” (“Ld.CIT(A)”, dated 21/04/2025 for the A.Y 2021-22.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT (A), the assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1) the order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2) the learned CIT (A) ought to have provided further opportunity before dismissing the appeal in limini;
3) the learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the appellant paid the amount of Rs.5, 000/- towards Prime Minister’s Relief Fund as required by the Hon’ble ITAT
4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the appeal on facts instead of dismissing the appeal without considering the facts on the ground that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was not paid uwithin the time;
5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the grounds on merit without dismissing the appeal as not maintainable;
6) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, this is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal. In the first round, this Tribunal vide order in ITA No.353/Hyd /2024, dated 11.07.2024, had remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits, subject to the condition that the assessee shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/-in favour of the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund,within one month from the date of receipt of the Tribunal’s order. However, the assessee could not deposit the said cost of Rs.5,000/- within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of late deposit of the cost.
4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CITA), the assessee has preferred the present second round of appeal before this Tribunal.
The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had ultimately paid the cost of Rs.5,000/- on 21.03.2025, though belatedly. It was submitted that the delay in payment was purely inadvertent and a mistake on the part of the assessee without any mala fide intention. The Ld. AR argued that substantial justice should not be denied merely on account of such inadvertent mistake and prayed that the matter may once again be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits.
5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld.DR”) did not raise any serious objection to the request of the assessee, but left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the mnaterial available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee has complied with the direction of this Tribunal in the first round by paying the cost of Rs.5,000/-, albeit belatedly. The delay has been explained as inadvertent and not mala fide. We are of the considered view that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. Since the assessee has already paid the earlier cost, though late, we deem it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the assessee for adjudication of the appeal on merits. However, in order to balance the equities and discourage recurrence of such lapses, we direct the assessee to pay a further cost of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to Such payment, the mnatter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who shall pass a fresh order on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd October, 2025.
Author Bio
