SHRI ARIF AHMED SIDDIQUI S/O M.A. SIDDIQUI, 309/33C CRESCENT, OPP. CHANDRA STORE, PALBICHLA ROAD AJMER-305001,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2) AJMER, WARD-1(2) AJMER

by the assessee in the appeal are as under: Under the facts & circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has erred in confirming the issue of :- “1. Making addition of Rs. 12,62,938/- as business income from share trading.

In this appeal, the main grievance of the assessee relates to challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal ex parte without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee

From perusal of the record, we noticed that there is delay of more than 500 days days in filing this appeal, for which the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay and the contents of application for condonation of delay reads as under:

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. As regards the sufficiency of cause for filing the appeals belatedly, it is settled principles of law that the Courts have to take liberal approach while interpreting the expression ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the power to condone the delay provided under the statute is to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matter on merits, therefore, while considering the matters for condonation of delay, the law must be applied in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice and technical considerations should not come on the way of cause of substantial justice. There is no quarrel that the explanation and reasons explained for delay must be bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in the underhand way. If the party who is seeking condonation of delay has not acted in malafide manner and reasons explained are factually correct then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of such party. A justice-oriented approach has to be taken while

If we apply the settled principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other courts on the facts of the present case we find that the assessee has explained cause of delay, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of more than 500 days in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.

Since the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit but appeal was dismissed ex parte, therefore, in these facts and circumstances, we find that though there are inordinate delay in filing this appeal by the assessee, however, the matter ought to have been decided on merits by the ld. CIT(A) instead of dismissing the same in limini. In our view, it was the bounded duty of the parties i.e. assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, this was the assessee’s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice demands that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.