Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 27 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition explaining the delay due to the Director's illness. The Revenue did not file a counter-affidavit, and the Sr. DR conceded to the condonation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 27 days, accepting the reasons provided due to illness and considering the interest of substantive justice. An application to admit additional evidence was also pressed.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's illness, and whether additional evidence should be admitted for adjudication.
Sections Cited
46A(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 17.10.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the very outset, it is noted that the present appeal is time barred by 27 days. That explaining the reasons of the said delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit dated 10.02.2026. That Para 3 of the affidavit corroborates with the condonation application dated 09.02.2026, wherein reasons for such delay of 27 days has been explained. The condonation petition dated 09.02.2026 is extracted as follows:
I have carefully considered the contents of the condonation petition a/w. affidavit. It is clearly discernable that the said delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and was not at all deliberate or malafide on part of the assessee. That further, the Revenue has also not filed any counter affidavit nor has brought on record any adverse evidence challenging the said condonation of delay. Rather, the Ld. Sr. DR conceded to the condonation petition filed by the assessee in the interest of substantive justice. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, considering the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania 5 M/s. VSC Finance Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.)
Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the said delay of 27 days involved in the present appeal is hereby condoned and the matter is heard on merits.
That even without going into the merits of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pressed an application dated 03.03.2026 under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences. The said application is extracted as follows:
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that such additional evidences could not be filed before the sub-ordinate authorities since they were not available and they were collected from creditors subsequent to the proceedings after persuasion. The Ld. Sr. DR has not refuted the submissions brought on record by the assessee. Further, it was prayed by the Ld. Counsel that an opportunity may be provided so that these additional evidences may be addressed and adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in terms with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 through remand report from the A.O in the interest of justice. He further submitted that these additional evidences are crucial for determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties herein. I find merit in the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel and even without going into the merits of this matter before me, in the interest of justice, these additional evidences are admitted and remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC with a direction to comply with Rule 46A(3) of the IT Rules, 1962 while calling for a remand report from the A.O and thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall adjudicate the matter denovo as per law while complying with principles of natural justice. The assessee shall represent the matter on merits before the First Appellate Authority. In view thereof, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set aside as per aforesaid directions.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above terms. Order pronounced in open court on 12th day of March, 2026.