LATE ASHOK CHAGANLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(4 )( 1 ) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of 762 days in filing the appeal before me. The assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of the said delay. In the affidavit, it has been submitted by Mrs. Darshna Ashok Jain, wife of Late Ashok Chaganlal Jain, that the assessee passed away on 03.08.2025. It was stated that she was a housewife, unaware of and not dealing with the financial or tax affairs of her late husband. She came to know about the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 only on 12.12.2025, when their joint bank account was attached by the Assessing Officer. Immediately thereafter, she took steps to collect the necessary records, which were misplaced due to a change in the Chartered Accountant. She made diligent efforts to obtain copies of the orders, including filing an RTI application on 22.02.2025, and subsequently coordinated with a Chartered Accountant to file the present appeal before the Tribunal.

Considering the entire factual position as explained before me and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [1987 AIR 1353 (SC)], wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of a non-deliberate delay, substantial justice is to be preferred, I am of the view that the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee through the application and affidavit, and construing the expression “sufficient cause” liberally, I am inclined to condone the delay of 762 days in filing the appeal before me. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

From the records, I also noticed that the assessee was proceeded ex parte before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and, consequently, considering the documents placed on record, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, in the interest of justice, I am of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Assessing Officer 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 the proceedings.

Before parting, I wish to make it clear that my decision to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer shall in no way be construed as reflecting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

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