SUNIL RAMESH GOGIA,MUMBAI vs. WARD 22(3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

At the outset, we notice that there is a delay of 747 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and the same is reproduced herein below:

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, including the affidavit filed by the assessee.

The assessee has explained that the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) were disposed of ex-parte and that, owing to his lack of proper understanding of the faceless appellate mechanism and the electronic mode of communication, he could not effectively track the notices and proceedings. It has been stated that the assessee was not aware of the appellate order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 15.01.2024 and, consequently, was also unaware of the requirement to file an appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period. Subsequently, upon appointment of the present Authorised Representative, the appellate order came to the knowledge of the assessee during the course of review of the tax records and outstanding demand-related communications. Thereafter, the assessee sought professional advice and took prompt steps to file the present appeal, and no further delay occurred thereafter.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation furnished by the assessee, we find that the delay was occasioned due to bona fide reasons and cannot be said to be deliberate or with any mala fide intention. We also take note of the fact that the assessee has pleaded that he has an arguable case on merits.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 167 ITR 471 (SC), has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, provided the delay is not attributable to mala fide conduct or deliberate inaction. The expression “sufficient cause” is required to receive a liberal construction so as to advance the cause of substantial justice.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 747 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

We now proceed to consider the facts of the matter. We find that the proceedings before the learned CIT(A) were disposed of ex-parte and that the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to represent his case before the first appellate authority. In the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity ought to be granted to the assessee to present his case before the learned CIT(A).

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the appeal, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The assessee shall furnish a copy of the receipt evidencing such payment before the learned CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. 4

The assessee is directed to remain cooperative before the learned CIT(A) and shall not seek adjournments on frivolous or unreasonable grounds. The learned CIT(A) shall thereafter decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after considering the submissions and evidence furnished by the assessee.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the dispute. All issues on merits are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) independently and in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the learned CIT(A) shall provide adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the matter afresh.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.