Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a delay of 284 days. The delay was primarily attributed to the Director's son's ill health, which led the Director to be occupied with medical treatment, impeding the timely filing of the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, applying the principle of substantial justice as laid down by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, noting that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after providing another opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 284-day delay in filing the appeal, and if the case should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 11.07.2024 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 2016-17.
At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 284 days in filing 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:
We, Maharashtra Corporation Limited, (hereinafter referred to as "Assessee") through our Director, Tilokchand Manaklal Kothari ("Deponent"), do hereby take oath and state on solemn affirmation as under: -
1. 1. The appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2016-17 has been filed with a delay of 284 days with a request for a condonation of the same in the interest of justice.
2. The delay in filing of the impugned appeal is on account of the Assessee seeking appropriate legal advice apart from the fact that the son of Mr. Tilokchand Manaklal Kothari, Director of the Assessee and the deponent herein, was suffering from ill health and because of which the Director was busy with his son's medical treatment, including continuous therapy sessions, which significantly impeded the Assessee's ability to effect a timely filing of an appeal.
3. The delay in filing the impugned appeal is on grounds which constitute reasonable cause, and the delay cannot be deemed to be willful nor unreasonable. The delay thus deserves to be condoned, and the appeal deserves to be admitted and heard in the interest of justice. The Assessee further submits that it has not benefited in any way from the delayed filing of the appeal. The Assessee, however, shall suffer greatly if the delay is not condoned. The Assessee, in light of the above facts prays before this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly condone the delay in filing of the appeal and hear the appeal on merits in the interest of natural 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 and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Maharashtra Corporation Ltd., Mumbai. 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 Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, we noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was reasonable cause as explained in the application for 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 one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of Maharashtra Corporation Ltd., Mumbai. the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/11/2025