PUNEET SRIVASTAVA,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX. CPC, BENGALURE

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M.

(A) This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT (A), Bhubaneswar vide order dated 09.10.2024 for the AY 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Because the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts in completing the assessment at taxable income of Rs. 1248680/- and learned C.I.T. (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits. 2. Because the assessment order in question and appeal order as well are based on irrelevant material and have been passed without considering the

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 2

relevant material and evidences as were available on record and the same are not liable to be sustained.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF GROUNDS AS AFORESAID, THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ORDER IS CONTESTED ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC GROUNDS:

13.Because the income assessed and tax demanded are incorrect and are based on incorrect figure and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 3

(B) The assessee’s appeal against intimation dated 14.12.2021 issued by Income Tax Department under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 09.10.2024 on limitation ground. The assessee requested the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal. The request for condonation of delay was made on the ground of illness of the assessee’s wife. The assessee’s application for condoning the delay was rejected by the learned CIT(A) stating that no strong evidence in this regard had been adduced. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) in the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’ for short], a Paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side. The aforesaid Paper book contained written submissions. Relevant part of which is reproduced as under:

Written Submissions for appeal of A.Y. 2021-22

The humble appellant most respectfully has to submit as under: -

That the Appellant is filing the present appeal against the order dated 09/10/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar [Addl./JCIT (A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Appellant primarily on the ground of delay in filing the appeal before him, without properly appreciating the sufficient cause shown and without adjudicating the appeal on merits.

That the Appellant is a salaried individual working with HPL Electric & Power Limited and has been regularly filing his Income Tax Returns as an old assessee with full transparency.

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 4

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant filed his original ITR for A.Y. 2021-22 on 03/12/2021. Due to an inadvertent clerical/typing error at the time of e-filing, an incorrect higher income figure was reported, leading to an Intimation u/s 143(1) dated 14/12/2021 wherein the total income was computed at Rs. 12,48,680/- and a demand of Rs. 1,31,620/- was raised.

The correct taxable income, as per Form-16 issued by the employer, Bank Statements, Form-26AS and salary slips, is as under:

Gross Salary 1158397.00 Less: HRA u/s 10(13A) (-)120456.00 Less: Any other exemption u/s 10 (-)19800.00 Less: Standard Deduction (-)50000.00 Income Chargeable under the head salaries 968141.00

Less: Deduction u/s 80C (-)149961.00 Correct Taxable income 818180.00

The difference of approximately Rs. 4,30,500/- arose purely due to an inadvertent error in data entry while filing the ITR. There was no intent to evade tax or mislead the department.

The Intimation u/s 143(1) was received by the Appellant on 03/03/2024. The appeal before CIT(A) was filed on 15/05/2024 with a delay of about 43 days. The delay was occasioned due to serious illness of the Appellant's wife, which required constant medical attention during the relevant period. A detailed condonation application was filed along with medical evidence. A copy of which is submitted at page no.

The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 09/10/2024 rejected the condonation petition and dismissed the appeal without examining the merits of the case, despite the Appellant submitting detailed Written Submissions, Statement of Facts, Grounds of Appeal, Form-16, Bank Statements, and other supporting documents.

POINT-WISE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 5

The Appellant most respectfully submits the following point-wise reply in support of each ground of appeal raised in the present appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. These submissions are based on the facts already placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) along with the Written Submission, Statement of Facts, and supporting documents.

Ground No. 1:

That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant merely on the technical ground of delay without considering the sufficient and bona fide cause shown by the Appellant.

Submissions:

The Appellant had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 15.05.2024 with a delay of only 43 days. The Intimation u/s 143(1) was received on 03.03.2024. The delay occurred due to serious illness of the Appellant's wife, which required constant medical care and attention. This constitutes a reasonable and sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Tribunal has consistently held in various judgments that illness of self or family members is a valid ground for condonation of delay. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate this fact and rejected the condonation petition mechanically, which deserves to be set aside.

Ground No. 2:

That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the illness of the Appellant's wife constituted a reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation of delay, which is a well-accepted ground under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act.

Submissions:

The Appellant had specifically mentioned in Form-35 and in the Written Submission filed before Ld. CIT(A) that due to the illness of his wife, he could not file the appeal by the due date i.e. 02.04.2024. Medical documents/evidence were ready to be produced. The Ld. CIT(A) did not consider this human and genuine ground and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. It is settled law that technicalities should not come in

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 6

the way of substantial justice, especially when there is no malafide on the part of the Appellant.

Under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the Appellant demonstrates "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within the thirty-day period, the authority may condone the delay and admit the appeal. The expression "sufficient cause", as appearing in Section 249(3), is to be construed in consonance with the meaning ascribed to the same expression in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 321, authoritatively held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction where the delay is not attributable to any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction, or negligence on the part of the Appellant, so as to advance substantial justice. The relevant extract is reproduced below:

"8. ....The words 'sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation' should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant."

Further, in Prashant Projects Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, [2013] 37 taxmann.com 137/145 ITD 202 (Mum. Trib.), it was held that the expression "sufficient cause" means a cause beyond the control of the assessee; the test to be applied is that of a prudent and reasonable man in normal circumstances, i.e., whether the cause could have been avoided by exercise of due care, and whether it is a bona fide cause.

In Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao, AIR 2002 SCC 1201, the Hon'ble apex court while relying on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji 1987 AIR 1353 reiterated the following guiding principles governing condonation of delay applications, which are binding and fully applicable to the present case:

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 7

"(i) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

(ii) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

(iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense, pragmatic manner.

(iv)When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.

(v) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or mala fides.

(vi) The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid principles governing condonation of delay under Section 249(3) squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Where no negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides can be imputed to the Appellant, acceptance of the explanation for delay ought to be the norm rather than the exception. In the present case, the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days as his wife had fallen severely ill. Consequently, the appeal came to be filed with a delay of only 43 days. Illness of a spouse has been repeatedly recognised as constituting "sufficient cause" for the purposes of Section 249(3), and in such circumstances the appellate authorities have condoned delays far more substantial than the short delay in the present matter. In these circumstances, and in light of the settled principle that procedural provisions must advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on technical grounds, the brief delay of 43 days deserves to be condoned and the appeal heard on merits.

In Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios v ITO, ITA No. 7352/Del/2019 the Bench condoned a delay of over five (5) months in filing the appeal holding that hospitalization of the assessee's daughter for a period of six months was

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 8

beyond the assessee's control and constituted sufficient cause. The Bench specifically directed CIT(A) to take a liberal view. The relevant extract is reproduced hereunder:

"5. The assessee has assigned the reason for condoning the delay was that, 'his daughter was hospitalized in the month of April to September, 2016 and the circumstances was very serious and beyond control of the assessee, therefore, assessee could not file the appeal in time'. But the Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the reason for delay in filing the Appeal claimed by the Assessee cannot be accepted to be a sufficient cause... In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) should have taken liberal view by considering the reasons assigned by the assessee for condoning the delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A)..." (Ann. 92-95)

In Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Ramani v. ITO, ITA No. 833/Rjt/2024, the Bench upheld the condonation of a delay of 147 days specifically on the ground of the assessee's wife's ill health, placing reliance on Bharat Auto Center v. CIT, 282 ITR 366, the following was stated-

"5. Where a case has been presented in the Tribunal beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the Tribunal, as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Tribunal within limitation. Before us, the assessee explained the 'sufficient cause' stating that due to severe illness of the assassee's wife, there was tension environment in his family, and therefore the assessee could not take decision to file the appeal, before the Tribunal, on time. We find that the words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant, in this regard, reliance is based on the decision of Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366." (Ann-96-99)

In the present case:

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 9

It is therefore humbly submitted that the delay in filing the appeal ought to be condoned as the same is covered by a "sufficient cause" as recognised and established by a catena of decisions.

Ground No. 3:

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits, which has caused grave injustice to the Appellant.

Submissions:

The Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order on merits. Even though detailed Written Submission along with Form-16, Bank Statement, calculation of correct income, and other documents were filed, the Ld. CIT(A) did not discuss or adjudicate the core issue - the inadvertent error in reporting of income. This is against the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to either remand the matter or decide the issue on merits in the interest of justice.”

(C) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). In this regard, he relied on the written submissions, relevant part of which has already been reproduced in the following paragraph (B) of this order. Further, he submitted that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity either during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) or during assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the impugned order of the learned

I.T.A. No. 207/VNS/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 10

CIT(A) should be set-aside and the Assessing Officer should be directed to pass denovo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative did not express any objection to this.

(D) In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to pass denovo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(E) In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 11/06/2026)

Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Date: 11/06/2026 SK, Sr.PS

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow