Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) with a delay of 77 days. The assessee explained the delay as being due to a medical emergency in the family of the employee handling appellate proceedings, which led to a lack of communication with the tax consultant and an ex-parte order being passed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 77 days in filing the appeal, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained to warrant condonation, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2019-20.
At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of 77 2. days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
I, Mr. Manish Madan Rana, Aged 43 Years, appellant residing at 303 Zenab Palace Pooja Nagar, Rd Manthan, Naya Ngr Mirafroभायिक जाधव Thane.
I say that, an assessment order dated 06.03.2024 was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act and the total income was computed at Rs.43,74,750/- after the addition of Rs.37,73,848/- was made on account of cash credits u/s 68 of the Act in my case for AY 2019-20. Aggrieved by which I have filed an appeal before Id. CIT(A) on 27.03.2024.
I say that, during the course of appellate proceedings before Id. CIT(A), employee who was looking after the appellate proceedings in coordination with the tax consultant went to his native place in the month January 2025 due to certain medical emergency in his family.
4. I say that, the above referred employee did not came to office till June 2025 due to on-going medical treatment of his family member. 5. I say that, the mail id on which notice and intimation of assessment order was received was handled by the said employee, however due to his sudden departure for medical reasons, he inadvertently failed to inform me about any status of appellate proceedings in my case. 6. I say that, it was only in the month of July 2025, when the tax consultant has enquired about the fate of appellate proceedings it was only then when I found that an exparte CIT(A) order for AY 2019-20 has already been passed and same remained to be forwarded to tax consultant for further action. 7. I say that, it was due to above referred reasons that no action was taken by us against the CIT(A) order. I say that immediately after gaining knowledge of the CIT(A) order being passed in my case, I have approached our tax consultants who later advise us to file the appeal. Accordingly, appeal was filed before Hon'ble Tribunal on 16.07.2025 which resulted into delay of 76 days.
I say the delay in filing the appeal is purely on account of circumstances beyond my control and there was no mala fide intention or deliberate negligence on my part.
9. I say that denial of condonation of delay would cause irreparable hardship to me as I would lose the opportunity to contest the additions made, whereas if the delay is condoned, no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue.
I say that the facts stated hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are set out in chronological order for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
I say that I am filing this affidavit to place the correct facts on record and to humbly request that the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us to the effect that the employee who was handling the mail had gone to the native village on account of medical emergency in his family and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Manish Madan Rana., Mumbai. Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR relied upon the reasons mentioned in the application for seeking condonation of delay which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that adequate opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous
8. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the 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 the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.