Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 403 days. The assessee's authorized representative submitted that the delay was due to severe medical issues faced by the assessee. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 403 days, noting that the assessee had substantiated the reasons with medical evidence and that a liberal approach is warranted for delays attributable to circumstances beyond the litigant's control. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to genuine medical hardship, and whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal in limine without granting adequate opportunity.
Sections Cited
144, 249(4)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Vengala Rao Madala, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-11(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN:AQNPM6758J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 22/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Vengala Rao Madala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 04.10.2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 403 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was suffering from severe medical issues, and for most of the intervening period, he was advised complete bed rest by the attending doctors. In support of this submission, the assessee has filed copies of medical certificates and treatment records. It was further submitted that due to the prolonged illness and continuous bed rest, the assessee’s mental health and ability to manage his personal and financial affairs were severely affected. Therefore, there was no deliberate or intentional delay in filing the appeal, and the delay was purely on account of genuine medical hardship. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed for condonation of the delay in the interest of justice.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation of such an inordinate delay, contending that the assessee has not shown sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases :
(i) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LR in S.L.P. (Civil) No.21096 of 2019 dated 03.04.2024 (SC). (ii) Parthapati Subba Reddy & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) in SLP (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 dated 08.04.2024 (SC). (iii) Balwant Singh Vs. Jagadish Singh & Ors in SLP (Civil) No.1166 of 2006 dated 08.07.2010 (SC). (iv) Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited in SLP (Civil) No.9580/2025 dated 15.04.2025 (SC).
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, including the medical certificates. We find merit in the explanation offered by the assessee that the delay was purely on account of genuine medical hardship. The reliance placed by the Ld. DR on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court are not applicable to the case of the assessee, because in the present case the assessee has substantiated the reasons of delay with adequate supporting evidences. Further, we found that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 has held that while deciding a condonation petition, a liberal and judicial approach should be adopted, particularly when the delay is attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the litigant and there is no mala fide intention. Therefore, considering the medical condition of the assessee during the relevant period, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 403 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 12.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the assessee had not satisfied the requirement of section 249(4)(b) of the Act prior to filing the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) issued communications affording opportunity to the assessee; however, the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee had not satisfied the requirement of section 249(4)(b) of the Act prior to filing the appeal.
7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the appeal came to be dismissed without effectively enabling the assessee to be heard. He requested that one final opportunity be granted before the Ld. CIT(A) to address the objection under section 249(4)(b) and, if required, to place materials in support. It was specifically submitted that granting one more opportunity would not confer any undue benefit upon the assessee to avoid or delay the proceedings, and no loss or prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by such limited remand. The assessee undertakes to cooperate and to comply with any directions within the timeframe fixed.
8. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the remand, contending that the statutory precondition under section 249(4)(b) of the Act was admittedly not met and that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appeal in limine after issuing opportunities.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The impugned dismissal by Ld. CIT(A) was rests solely on section 249(4)(b) of the Act. It is also a matter of record that opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A), but no response was filed by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice, and bearing in mind the assessee’s undertaking that there will be full cooperation and that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue, we deem it appropriate to afford one final opportunity. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions that, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide one more opportunity to the assessee to demonstrate compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Act or to make such submissions as may be permissible in law. The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to respond to the notices of the Ld. CIT(A) promptly and to avoid any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd August, 2025.