Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 493 days. The assessee was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A) due to a 'sufficient cause'. The assessee requested condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the 'sufficient cause' and the principles of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 30.08.2023 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 very outset I noticed that there is a delay of 493 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee . In this regard Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking 2 Harishchandra Shreepat, Mumbai condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the basis of reasons mentioned in the application.
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.
3 Harishchandra Shreepat, Mumbai
At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex- parte before Ld.AO and Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee to represent properly before AO and Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
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 AO and 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.AO. Since there was complete non cooperation on behalf of the assessee during the proceedings before the revenue authorities therefore a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assesse 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. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on 4 Harishchandra Shreepat, Mumbai 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 AO 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.