Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, legal heir of Late Debabrata Sinha Ray, filed an appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 against an NFAC order, which was delayed by 638 days. The original assessment, reopened under Section 148, treated long-term capital gain from redevelopment as "Income from Other Sources." The delay was primarily due to the demise of the assessee's husband, her unfamiliarity with tax laws, and only learning about the appeal dismissal upon receiving a penalty order.
Held
The tribunal condoned the significant delay, emphasizing the principle of advancing substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present her case. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperation in previous proceedings.
Key Issues
The primary legal issue was the condonation of a 638-day delay in filing the appeal. The underlying substantive issue concerns the correct head of income for gains from redevelopment (Long Term Capital Gain vs. Income from Other Sources).
Sections Cited
250, 148, 143(3), 147, 271(1)(c), 54, 54EC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 27.05.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2011-12.
At the outset, I noticed that the present appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by limitation about 638 days and in this regard an application for seeking 2 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
3 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai 4 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, I also noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld. CIT(A) and the reasons for non-appearing before Ld. CIT(A) is the same which is mentioned in the detailed affidavit cited above.
5 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Since there was non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on account of condonation of delay and also for non appearance before Ld. CIT(A) is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
6 Late Debarata Sinha Ray., Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.