Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as barred by limitation due to a delay of 172 days. The assessee had explained the delay by citing serious personal issues faced by their Finance Manager, including his father's death and his mother's subsequent illness.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without properly considering the reasons for the delay and the explanation provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 26/03/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/06/2016, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 as being barred by limitation.
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal only on Assessment Year 2013-2014 the ground of delay without dealing with the merits of the case.
2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal as time barred without reading the affidavit fully.
3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
4. The Learned CIT(A) has read the affidavit dated 27th Sept 2016 fled by V.Venkatesh lyer half heartedly and ignored the second half of the affidavit where he has explained the delay by mentioning the tragic events which occurred after the death of his father, when his mother suffering from serious illness ultimately and unfortunately she expired.
5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that in the affidavit each day of delay has been explained.
6. The Learned CIT(A) has looked at the case with predetermined mind and ignored totally the second half of the Affidavit. If he would have considered the entire affidavit, then on humanitarian ground also he would have condoned the delay.
7. Without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered and decided the appeal on merits by relying on the written submissions along with grounds of Appeal and statements of facts filed by the Appellant.”
3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.
4. In the present case the assessment was framed on Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 vide Assessment Order dated 22/06/2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act at assessed income of INR.3,01,22,480/- as against returned income of INR. 14,14,550/-. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appeal was instituted on 27/09/2016 after delay of 172 days in filing the appeal. Vide order, dated 26/03/2024, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. As a result the Assessee has preferred the present appeal challenging the order passed by the CIT(A).
2 Assessment Year 2013-2014
During the course of hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee had invited our attention to the affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in appeal filed before CIT(A). On perusal of the same, we find that affidavit has been sworn by the Finance Manager/Accountant of the Assessee Company. It is stated therein that the aforesaid Finance Manager was looking after income tax matters of the Assessee Company. However at the relevant time he was facing serious personal problems since his father was suffering from cancer and passed away on 24/02/2010. After the demise of his father, the Finance Manager was taking care of his mother who is suffering from arthritis. The Finance Manager, being the only son, had to attend to the personal exigencies and could only resume the office after 15/09/2016. Thereafter, steps were taken to get the appeal filed against the Assessment Order which was received by the Assessee on 08/03/2016. It was explained that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances delay of 172 days had occurred and the delay cause was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee-Company.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471, held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. We have taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, and are of the view that the delay in filing the present appeal was not deliberate. The Assessee had nothing to gain by delaying the filing of appeal before the CIT(A). 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 3 Assessment Year 2013-2014 delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Accepting the explanation given by the Assessee to be reasonable, we hold that in the present case the Assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC), we condone the delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal. The order dated 26/03/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(A) set aside with the directions to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits as per law. It is clarified that the CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. However, in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 to 7 raised by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In terms of the aforesaid, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.