MANGALA SURESH SONAWANE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5348/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 January 2025AY 2016-175 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical approach in considering the grounds for condonation of delay. The right of appeal is a statutory right that should not be denied on technical grounds unless there is inordinate delay or gross negligence. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., which emphasizes a liberal approach to condoning delay to do substantial justice and avoid meritorious matters being thrown out. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation constituted sufficient cause for the delay. Consequently, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be disposed of on merits after considering the material on record. The assessee was directed to present its case within 90 days of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mangala Suresh Sonawane, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2016-17. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as not maintainable because it was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The assessee contended that she is an uneducated lady, lacked knowledge of income tax proceedings, and missed a submission, only becoming aware of the outstanding demand when her daughter-in-law received a call. The Department relied on the CIT(A)'s order, stating there was no sufficient cause for condonation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17 was liable to be condoned on the grounds stated by the assessee, thereby making the appeal maintainable? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that there was sufficient cause for the delay, citing her lack of education and knowledge of income tax proceedings. She missed a submission and only learned of the outstanding demand later. She requested condonation of the delay. Revenue's Contentions: The Department relied on the Ld. CIT(A)'s judgment, asserting that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and that the order was legally sound.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Respondent: Ms. Kanupriya Damor, Ld. DR
Pronounced: 13.01.2025

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 26.07.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2016-17, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as not maintainable because it was found that the appeal has been filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s. 249 of the act without any sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

2.

It is brought to our notice that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay as mentioned in form no. 35 and the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) which are extracted as under:_ “Assessee is an uneducated lady was not having knowledge of income tax proceedings and submission was missed by her. She came to know about this after her daughter in law received call regarding outstanding demand. Assessee requests your honor to condone the delay in filing of appeal” Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and an opportunity of hearing need to be granted.

3.

The Ld. DR has relied upon the judgment of the Ld. CIT(A) stating that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the judgment is legally perfect.

4.

We have considered the submissions made by Ld. DR as well the material placed on record. The observation of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted a hyper-technical approach while considering the grounds of condonation of delay in the case of the appellant.

5.

The right of appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 248 is a statutory right granted to the appellant/assessee. The statutory right cannot be denied to an assessee unless there is inordinate delay or gross negligence on the part of the assessee. It is settled law that the rules and procedure is handmade of justice and the adjudicating authorities should not deny a statutory right of appeal on technical grounds.

6.

Nothing contrary has been brought on record by the respondents which may contradict and falsify facts alleged by the appellant in support of seeking condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC),dated 19.02.1987, was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:

“The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:

1. 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. 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 delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.”

7. In the facts and circumstances as discussed above and because of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors (supra),we are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay for filing this appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee.

8. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside with the directions to restore the case of the assessee on the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall dispose the same on merit after duly considering the material brought on record by the appellant before the Ld. CIT(A). The appellant/assessee shall present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) within 90 days of this order.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 249

All 507 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →