KOVVURI SAMBA SIVA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the above cited appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by not condoning the delay of 244 days. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on several decisions and finally held that the appellant has not furnished any corroborative medical or documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of ill health or bed rest for the period under consideration. Since the arguments placed before the Ld.CIT(A) are not supported by any independent verification and credible evidence to demonstrate that the delay was beyond the control of the appellant, the statutory requirement for condonation of delay remains unfulfilled. In view of the same, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of the 244 days delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the appeal is not maintainable in the present circumstances.

As the Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and did not discuss the issues on merits while disposing of the appeal, the appellant is aggrieved and filed an appeal before ITAT. Before ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant has pleaded that the assessee genuinely suffered certain health problems and filed an affidavit, stating that he had been suffering from back pain, stiffness and consulted an orthopedic doctor. Since the health condition did not improve even after taking treatment for a considerable period of time, the appellant went into depression on account of continued illness and finally he had to consult a psychiatrist also. Finally the doctor had diagnosed the appellant with HLA-B27 protein presence, which indicates the risk of developing autoimmune diseases. The appellant has filed medical prescriptions indicating the medicines, which are being used by the appellant and a medical certificate was also enclosed along with discharge summary when the assessee was discharged from the hospital. Because of lack of proper advice, all these papers could not be filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and now all these medical certificates along with affidavit etc. were filed before the ITAT for the kind perusal and to give a direction to the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and pass order on merits.

The Ld.DR opposed the delay, stating that the medical certificates, which are filed for the first time before the ITAT should not be entertained, because, they were neither examined by any departmental authority, nor filed before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, they should not be taken cognizance and liable to be dismissed.

After hearing both the sides, the Bench decides to take a lenient view after perusing various medical prescriptions, medical certificates and discharge summary issued by the hospital and condone the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). But the fact remains that these documents were not filed before the lower authorities and also it is not very clear from record as to whether this illness really hindered the assessee in filing the appeal with delay before the Ld.CIT(A). Giving benefit of doubt and taking a lenient view, the Bench decides to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant, which should be paid to AP State Legal Services Authority within a month of receipt of this Order and the delay is condoned. In view of the above, the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to take up the issue on merits and pass an order afresh after taking into consideration all the grounds/arguments. Needless to say that, reasonable opportunity should be given to the appellant before passing the order.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.