Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The appeal was filed with a delay, and the assessee provided an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, including personal medical exigencies and reliance on his advocate. The assessee also filed an application for additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also allowed the application for additional evidence, stating that the documents were vital for deciding the case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether additional evidence should be admitted for deciding the case.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 02.12.2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2017- 18.
At the very outset, it was pointed out that there is delay in filing the present appeal, in this regard Ld. AR has 2 Rajendra Sadashiv Chandrachud, Mumbai filed detailed affidavit thereby mentioning reasons for delay in filing the appeal.
On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the said affidavit and prayed for dismissal of application for seeking condonation of delay.
After having heard counsels at length and perusal of record, I found that the detailed affidavit filed by the assessee contains fact the he was completely depended upon his advocate, who is above 85 years and was also busy in taking care of his old mother suffering from tuberculosis and was hospitalized constantly apart from that there were other medical exigencies in his family. Therefore considering the contents of the application and detailed unrebutted affidavit filed by the assessee and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of none deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles and the facts of the case we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
3 Rajendra Sadashiv Chandrachud, Mumbai
Ld. AR has filed an application for leading additional evidence, it is pleaded that the assessee completely depended upon his advocate and had handed over to him these three documents i.e cash book, bank statement, bank summery, the details of which are contained in para 5 of the application but the advocate had not submitted these documents before the revenue authorities and because of that additions have been made in the hands of the assessee.
After having heard counsels for both the parties and perusing the application for leading additional evidence, I found that these three documents i.e cash book, bank statement and bank summary are vital documents for deciding the controversy in question, which goes to the roots of the case. Therefore prejudice shall be caused to the assessee, in case these documents are not taken into consideration. Therefore considering the submissions made by the assessee in his application and also taking into consideration the interest of justice I allow the present application for leading additional evidence and admit the documents mentioned in the application as additional evidence. 7. Since, I have admitted the documents as additional evidence which requires factual verification. Therefore in my view the ends of justice would be met in case the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh 4 Rajendra Sadashiv Chandrachud, Mumbai adjudication. Consequently the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue afresh after proving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to call for any other documents / information if so required from the assessee and further the Ld. CIT(A) can also call the report from the AO with regard to the factual verification of the documents if any and so required. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.