NAVKAR GEMS PRIVATE LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1)(3), SURAT

Since these appeals relate to the same assessee; the counsels representing are same and the adjudication required is also same, they were heard together at the request of parties and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity.

There is a delay of 429 days in each of the appeals. The assessee has filed identical applications/affidavits for condonation of delay; one of the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:

The averments made by assessee-company’s director in above affidavit, which are self-explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee in Paras 3 to 6 of affidavit and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned orders of first-appeal as ex-parte due to non-prosecution by assessee but the non-prosecution occurred, as narrated in Paras 3 to 6 of the above affidavit filed for condonation of delay, due to mis-understanding and communication gap between assessee and counsel. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given to assessee by way of restoring these matters to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. Ld. AR assured that the assessee has collected all required details and documents to explain its matters and shall definitely make a proper and effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). While making these submissions, Ld. AR also proposed that a reasonable cost may be imposed upon assessee to offset the revenue’s efforts in dealing assessee’s cases afresh.

In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if these matters are restored at the level of Ld. CIT(A), we restore these matters to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

However, we find that the assessee in present case is a company and not an individual; there were non-compliances by assessee to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A); and also the present appeals have been filed after delay. Therefore, there is an element of lethargy to some extent attributable to assessee-company. Further, the resources of

These appeals are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost by assessee as mentioned above.