MEDSAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1015/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dealing with the appeals on merit without first condoning the delay in filing the appeals. This action was considered a violation of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be bona fide, noting that the appellant did not gain anything by not filing the appeal promptly. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned. In the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.03.2022 was set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The appellant was to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Medsave Health Insurance TPA Limited, filed four appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging common orders dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. These orders arose from assessment orders passed under Section 154 and Section 200A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for assessment years 2014-15, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The core issue was the dismissal of the assessee's applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), and consequently, the dismissal of the appeals on merit. The delay ranged from approximately one year to over three years. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the departure of the company's CFO, leaving junior staff unable to manage affairs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals, and consequently, the appeals on merit, contrary to the principles of natural justice and the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and principles of natural justice). Assessee's contentions: The Ld. CIT(A) illegally dismissed the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals on merit. The delay was caused because the CFO of the company left service in 2015, and the junior staff could not handle day-to-day affairs. In the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 200A,Section 3,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.05.2025Pronounced: 15.05.2025

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No. 1014/DEL/2022
ITA No. 1015/DEL/2022
ITA No. 1016/DEL/2022
ITA No. 1028/DEL/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER BENCH: The above captioned four appeals filed by the appellant/assessee are against common order dated 23.03.2022 of Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) arising out of assessment order dated 27.02.2017 under Section 154 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-26, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) for assessment year 2014-15 under Section 200A of the Act, for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 passed by ACIT/DCIT, Bangalore/New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the AO").

2.

Since, all the appeals involved identical grounds and issues, were heard together for the sake of convenience and are being decided by this common order.

3.

Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeal on merit illegally. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay in filing appeals was due to the reason that CFO of the Company left service in 2015 and the juniors in the company could not handle the day to day affairs of the company. Under such situation, Learned Authorized Representative prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law.

4.

Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).

5.

From examination of record, in light of aforesaid rival submission, it is crystal clear that details of delay in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) are under:

A.Y. Date of Date of appeal Delay in filing of appeal order filed 2014-15 27.02.2017 13.01.2021 3 years 10 months 17 days 2017-18 21.09.2017 13.01.2021 1 year 3 months 23 days 2018-19 18.11.2018 13.01.2021 2 years 1 month 26 days 2019-20 07.11.2019 13.01.2021 1 year 2 months 6 days

6.

Keeping in view the aforesaid details, Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 23.03.2022 dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals as well as appeals were dismissed on merit. Ld.CIT(A) erred in dealing with appeals on merit without condoning the delay in filing appeals is in violation of section 3 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside. The explanation for delay is bona fide as appellant did not again anything by not filing appeal. The delay in filing appeals is condoned. In the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law. The appellant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →