HRIDAYE SURESH GROVER ,MUMBAI vs. WARD 41(4)(2), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

At the outset, we noticed from the records that there is a delay of 894 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the said delay and the contents of the same is reproduced herein below:

Considering the entire factual matrix placed before us and the peculiar circumstances of the case, we noticed that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee was a minor, aged about 14–15 years, and had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the amounts debited and credited in his account, the same having been exclusively managed by his father, Shri Suresh Grover. We further noticed from the affidavit filed by the assessee that his father was bedridden and seriously ill prior to his demise.

In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay. While doing so, we also keep in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) AIR 1353 (SC)], wherein it has been held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should prevail. The expression “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally in order to advance substantial justice.

Accordingly, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, which satisfactorily explains the delay in filing the appeal, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

From the records, we further noticed that the assessee was proceeded ex parte before the Learned CIT(A) and, consequently, the Learned CIT(A), considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal.

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 Learned CIT(A), we are of the view that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present his case before the Learned CIT(A).

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for adjudication afresh in accordance with law, after providing the assessee with adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard, subject to a cost of ₹5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Learned CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and shall not seek adjournments on frivolous grounds.

Before parting, we clarify 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 case, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Learned CIT(A) in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the Learned CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

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