JAGNYASENI HOSPITAL,JHARSUGUDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHARSUGUDA

1 ITA Nos.775 to 777 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G. GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.775 to 777 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13 Jagnyaseni Hospital, Opp. LIC Vs. ACIT, Circle, Rourkela Office, Collectorate Road, Jharsuguda PAN/GIR No.AAHFJ 0436 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijaya Singh ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 06/10/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 06/10/2026

O R D E R Per Bench ITA Nos.775 & 776/CTC/2026 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 16.4.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2009- 10/10429191 and NFAC/2010-11/10429192 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and ITA No.777/CTCk/2026 is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.4.2025 of ld Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara in Appeal No.Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vavodara/10001/2011-12 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Shri Anil Kr Agrawal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. 3. These appeals are barred by limitation by 412 days. The assessee has filed condonation petitions supported by affidavits, stating the reasons for not filing the

2 ITA Nos.775 to 777 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13

appeals within the stipulated period, which are not found to be false. Hence, we condone the delay of 412 days in all the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. 4. At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2010--11 and 2011-12 and Ld JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara have dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. He submitted that the appeals for the respective assessment years i.e. 4207 for the assessment year 2010-11 and 4116 for the assessment year 2011-12 and 4345 for the assessment year 2012-13. It was the submission that the appeals were dismissed by the first appellate authorities on the ground of sufficient cause shown in the condonation petitions. He submitted that the assessee had filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act and was bonafide impression that the depreciation will be allowed. Ld AR submitted that the issues raised in the appeals have not been considered on merit and requested to condone the delay and issues be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently opposed to the prayer of ld AR of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has not given any reasonable cause for condoning the delay, therefore, ld CIT(A) had no option but to refuse to the condone the delay in filing the appeals. Ld Sr DR submitted that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the appellate authority is to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation rather than starting with the merits of the main matter. Only when sufficient cause or reasons given for the delay by the litigant, it should be considered. He submitted that the

3 ITA Nos.775 to 777 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13

delay in all the appeals are more than 11 years, which is exceptional and such delay should not be condoned. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the orders of ld CIT(A) shows that the assessee had given a plea that rectification petition u/s.154 was filed and the depreciation should be allowed. Only when the assessee came to know that his plea was not considered, then the appeals were filed before the ld CIT(A). In all these cases, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation without considering the case on merits. This being so, we are of the view that the assessee has not been provided reasonable opportunity to explain the grounds before the first appellate authority. We rely on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471), wherein, it is held that a liberal approach should be taken when dealing with condonation of delay applications to ensure that meritorious cases are not dismissed on technical grounds. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others (2002 AIR 1201 SC) held that “sufficient cause” should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. Respectfully following the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we hold that the assessee will not get any benefit by delaying the appeal at the appellate stage. In this case, the case of the assessee has not been considered on merits but has been rejected on the ground of limitation. Hence, we condone the delay of 4207, 4146 and 4345 days in filing the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) in the respective assessment years and issues are restored to their file for fresh

4 ITA Nos.775 to 777 /CTC/2026 Assessment Year: 2010-11 to 2012-13

adjudication on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (G. GURUSAMY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack ; Dated 06/10/2026 RS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant: Jagnyaseni Hospital, Opp. LIC Office, Collectorate Road, Jharsuguda