Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 145 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The appellant cited the death of his father as a reason for the delay and claimed the delay was minimal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal without considering the merits, especially when grounds were raised. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the death of the appellant's father and the minimal nature of the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits? Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in cases of death of a family member causing the delay?
Sections Cited
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, Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant filed an appeal with the following grounds of appeal :-
1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of “audi alteram partem”.
3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice.
4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant only on the ground of not providing reasons for the condonation of delay as the appeal was delayed by 145 days.
5. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant’s appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal filed against the impugned assessment order.
2 Harish Dharma Rathod (represented through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod)
6. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the judgements passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.
That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant’s appeal without granting final opportunity of making submissions in regard to the appeal filed against the impugned assessment order.
That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the appellate order in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts and circumstances of the case. 9. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing.
10. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
2. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 134 days. As there is a delay in filing appeal, the appellant filed an application before Ld. CIT(A) requesting him to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits. In this application, the appellant gave reasons for delay in detail. But, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reasoning and hence dismissed the appeal, by quoting certain cases-law.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was filed before the ITAT with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order.
During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant has argued as follows :- a) The appellant has a very good case on merits and he is not going to gain anything by filing an appeal with delay. b) The father of appellant passed away and it took some time to bring to get the legal representative on record.
3 Harish Dharma Rathod (represented through Legal Heir Pushpa H. Rathod) c) The appellant was not granted any opportunity to explain the case on merits by Ld. CIT(A). d) The order of Ld. CIT(A) does not contain adjudication on merits, even though several grounds of appeal were raised on merits.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).
After perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and hearing both sides, it is decided that the appellant should be given proper opportunity to be heard and his case should be disposed of on merits. As the appellant’s father passed away and the reason for delay is minimal, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant and pass the order on merits. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (69 Taxman.com 407)(Bom), has held that Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal without discussing the case on merits and other grounds of appeal raised by appellant.
7. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes as above.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025.