Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary, appealed an order from the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19, which was filed 258 days late. The delay was attributed to the assessee's illness, lack of communication from their consultant, and an inactive email ID on the income tax portal belonging to a resigned employee, leading to unawareness of the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding "sufficient cause" for the late filing and the assessee's ex-parte status before the CIT(A), applying the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to give the assessee a fresh opportunity for representation. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation during the initial revenue proceedings, to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
Key Issues
Whether there was "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing the appeal; Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) when they were ex-parte earlier.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 29.08.2024 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 2018-19.
At the outset, I noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 258 days and in this regard an affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
I Mr. Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary Son of Kasaram Choudhary resident of India hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. 1. I had filed appeal on 31/10/2021 before CIT(A) against Order of Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2018-19.
2. My appeal was look after by my Consultant. Unfortunately, I was suffering from Acute abdomen due to Bilateral Inguinal Hermia with Subacute obstruction and unwell from August 2024 and under medical treatment and doctor advise me for bed rest.
3. My Consultant had not informed me about my pending appeal status.
4. After come to know about outstanding demand I made enquiry about same then I came to know about Order passed by CIT(A) and immediately taken action to appoint Chartered Accountant to file appeal before Hon'ble ITAT.
5. I have file medical Certificate issued by Doctor.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the affidavit and requested for dismissal of the appeal as there are no ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within time.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and 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 Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. However, considering the fact that delay in filing the present appeal had accrued on Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary, Mumbai. account of the fact that email Id registered on the income tax portal belong to an employee, who had subsequently resigned from the company and the said email ID was no longer in use. Thus in this way the company was not made aware of the order passed there under. 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 I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before me. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was ‘sufficient cause’ 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 the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter Kanaram Kasaram Choudhary, Mumbai. back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the assesse 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 grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
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.