DILIPKUMAR PHOOLCHAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 20(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI () & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA ()
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:
The Present penalty appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 31/12/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment in 2013-14. 2
ITA 1304/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14
Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain
2. The outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay of 580
days. He submitted that the assessment order was passed on 27/01/2022 and assessee could not represent its case even before the Ld.AO. He submitted that the assessee was suffering from neurological issue and was under the treatment at Lilavathi
Hospital since 2019. The Ld.AR submitted that under these circumstances, the assessee was not in the physical condition to attend to the assessment proceedings or even to keep himself updated about the assessment order having passed. It was submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was forwarding all the notices to the chartered accountant and was under the bona fides belief that, all necessary compliances are being taken care of.
2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the delay was unintentional and that the assessee is not in any advantages position by not filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly. The Ld.AR submitted that quantum appeal is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A) on identical circumstances. He prayed for compassionate approach in the present facts of the case.
2.2 The Ld.DR on the contrary, could not controvert the submissions advanced by the Ld.AR, however supported the orders passed by the authorities below.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us.
3. In our view, the assessee has made out reasonable cause for the delay caused in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR filed medical reports before this Tribunal in order to substantiate its 3
ITA 1304/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14
Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain claim regarding the illness and the treatment administered on the assessee. There is nothing contrary filed by the revenue to establish any malafide intention on behalf of the assesse, or any affidavit to that extent to justify the action of the Ld.CIT(A). In our opinion there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land
Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.
3.1 Reliance is placed on following observations by Hon’ble
Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble
Court observed as under:-
“The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the 4 ITA 1304/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
2 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice. 3.3 We take support from the observations of Justice Krishna Iyer wherein he has quoted at various occasion while dealing with technicalities that “any interpretation that alludes substantive justice is not to be followed and that substantive justice must always prevail over procedural technicalities”. Even Hon’ble Katiji&Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 has laid down a ratio of similar principles. Respectfully following the thoughts propounded by Late Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer, as well as various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on similar issues, I condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeals before Ld.CIT(A). 4. We thus remit the issue back to Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to pass detailed order on merits. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The 5 ITA 1304/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2013-14 Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain assessee is directed to respond to the notices issued and to furnish all relevant documents in support of his claim. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly a lot for statistical purposes. In the result the file by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/08/2025 (ARUN KHODPIA) Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 29/08/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order
(Asstt.