Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 42 days. The assessee had also faced a significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to ill health. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of sufficient cause, specifically the assessee's ill health supported by medical certificates. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned in light of the assessee's ill health and non-receipt of hearing notices.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 28.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.
There is a delay of 42 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal and also a supporting affidavit.
3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte without condoning delay in filing the appeal before him [delay of 2 years, 8 months & 4 days]. The Ld.AR submitted that in Form 35, the assessee had given reasons for belated filing the appeal on account of his ill-health. However, he could not file any supporting medical certificates. Since the hearing notice issued from Office of CIT(A) was sent to wrong e-mail ID instead of one mentioned in Form-35.
The Ld.AR submitted that delay before the CIT(A) was partly during Covid period. It was further submitted that the assessee had suffered from stroke and systemic hypertension – Ischemic heart decease from August, 2021 and he has been treating by Dr.P.Muthukumar in Kumar Hospital, Sirkali, even to-day. A copy of the medical certificate issued by concerned Doctor is also placed on record.
6. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The assessee in Form-35 had given ill health as the reason for belated filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, assessee has not enclosed any supporting evidence nor has filed an affidavit. It is the claim of Ld.AR that assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on account of non-receipt of hearing notices, otherwise the assessee would have furnished necessary medical certificates and an affidavit for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) also has not condoned the delay primarily for the reason that no supporting evidences has been placed on record. It is a fact that hearing notice has been sent not on the e-mail ID mentioned by the assessee in Form-35. Therefore, assessee would have missed taking note of the hearing notices. Consequently, the same remained non-compliance and appeal was decided ex-parte. The assessee now before the Tribunal has placed on record medical certificates, wherein, it is clearly stated that the assessee has been suffering from stroke and systemic hypertension – Ischemic heart decease. In view of the documents now produced before us, we see no reason to remit the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since, the issue before the AO was completed on best judgement basis, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter before the AO. The AO is directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2025.