ARJUNSINH MADANSINH MOHITE PATIL,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(APPEALS) , NFAC, DELHI

Registry has informed that these appeals filed by different but connected assessee(s) are time barred by limitation in presenting the appeals before this Tribunal. There is delay of 210 days in respect of the appeals filed by Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil and there is delay of 98 days in respect of appeal filed by Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil. These assessee(s) have filed affidavits explaining the delay. Main reason for the delay is that the notices for communication were sent on the old email ids and therefore the assessee(s) have not filed any reply which resulted in passing of exparte orders.

On considering the above reason, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee(s) to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee(s) would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore adopting a justice oriented approach and in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the respective delay in filing of the instant appeals by both the assessee(s) before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication.

When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee(s) despite due service of notice of hearing. However, with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of the impugned orders notice that the orders have been passed exparte qua assessee(s) as the assessee(s) failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing by ld.CIT(A) as a result of which ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee(s) appeals in limine without dealing with merits of the case.

Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if the issues raised in the instant appeals by the assessee(s) are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We note that in the given set of appeals the assessee(s) have filed appeals before ld.CIT(A) against the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer for the respective assessment years. A common fact is that the assessee(s) have not responded to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and therefore no details could be filed in support of grounds of appeal raised. We also observe that in some cases ld.CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the appeals in limine without dealing with merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes.