MOHAMMAD RAFIK ESMUDDIN SIDHDIKI,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALEGAON., MALEGAON

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was delay of 173 days in filing of the appeals before ld.CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals without condoning the delay. Ld. Counsel referring to the condonation application filed before ld.CIT(A) submitted that the assessee is an illiterate and working as commission agent by selling agricultural produce particularly pomegranates by collecting them from the farmers and selling them to various traders. He was suffering from health issues at the relevant point of time. Since it was obligatory to register the email id, it was done with the help of a Tax Consultant but however he was unaware of the notices/assessment order. There exists reasonable cause for not presenting the appeals before ld.CIT(A) within the stipulated time. He therefore submitted that delay in filing of the appeal deserves condonation in light of judicial precedents referred in the condonation application.

Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We have perused the impugned orders and find that ld.CIT(A) has extracted the scanned portion of the application for condonation at page 27 to 29 of the order however did not condone the delay.

There is no dispute that u/s. 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on its part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. The purpose of the limitation period is to ensure expeditious disposal of appeal; however, where the delay is shown to be be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

In the instant appeals after going through the averments of the condonation application, we are satisfied that the assessee has made out a case of ‘sufficient cause’ warranting exercise of discretion u/s.253(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder

Considering the entire factual matrix and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling upon the merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeals are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A/NFAC) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभागीय प्रतितिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "SMC" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ड फाइल / Guard File.