MOIZUDDIN NAIMUDDIN SHAIKH,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1 LATUR, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1263/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 August 2025AY 2012-20134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's critical medical condition and the need for a justice-oriented approach, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others and Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had merely affirmed the Assessing Officer's findings without dealing with the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues raised on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order, granting proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with the ratio laid down in CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Moizuddin Naimuddin Shaikh, an individual, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, against an order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, dated 28.08.2024, which arose from an assessment order passed under section 144 dated 15.09.2021. There was a delay of 179 days in filing the appeal. The assessee, a 68-year-old senior citizen, cited severe medical conditions including tongue cancer, diabetes, and hypertension, along with complications from treatment, as reasons for the delay. He also stated his lack of knowledge regarding online procedures and reliance on his tax consultant, whose email was used for all communications. He claimed to be unaware of the CIT(A)'s order until receiving a penalty notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's medical condition and lack of technical knowledge (Question of mixed law and fact, relying on principles of justice and equity). 2. Whether the appeal should be admitted for adjudication on merits, given the circumstances leading to the dismissal by the CIT(A) (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances, specifically his critical medical condition and inability to navigate the online appeal process. He relied on the judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others and Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh. He sought one more opportunity to present his case. Revenue's contentions: The Departmental Representative supported the observations of the Assessing Officer and the findings of the CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the condonation of delay or the merits of the case beyond supporting the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Assessee by : Shri Girish Ladda (Through Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of : 01.09.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 28.08.2024 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 144 dated 15.09.2021.

2.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 179 days in filing of the present appeal. Application with affidavit has been filed for condonation of delay. Reasons for the delay mentioned in the affidavit are as under:- 2. That the said delay occurred due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances beyond my control. I am a 68-year-old senior citizen and have been suffering from malignant neoplasm of the base of the tongue (i.e., tongue cancer), diabetes, and hypertension. I underwent a wide excision surgery and right neck dissection in July 2021 at Vishwaraj Hospital, Pune, followed by adjuvant radiation therapy at Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune. I lost my ability to speak properly and it caused severe restrictions on me as nobody understands what I talk.

3. That the radiation therapy led to Grade 2 skin reactions and Grade 3 mucositis, requiring repeated hospitalizations and weekly follow-up treatments under Dr Mateen Chand Sayyed MBBS MS Registration number 2005/09/3494. I have also undergone periodic chemotherapy and whole-body PET scans. I have been under heavy medication since 2021. In addition to weekly follow ups, I have been hospitalized for 11 times in the past one year due to complications. These conditions have resulted in severe physical disability, including the inability to speak properly, and have caused immense physical and mental hardship to me and my family.

4.

That I am uneducated and do not possess any knowledge regarding computers, emails, or online portals. I am entirely unfamiliar with the faceless assessment/appeal mechanism and income tax law in general. This was a one-time transaction involving purchase of land that led to the assessment. I have never filed an income tax return online, nor do I have a personal email address. My tax consultant, Mr. T. R. Bora, used his email ID to register me on the income tax portal and received all communications. Due to my medical condition and frequent hospitalizations, I was unable to follow up with him or respond to notices.

5.

That I was completely unaware of the passing of the appellate order dated 28.08.2024 and came to know about the same only after receiving a phone call from the Income Tax Office, Latur, regarding a penalty notice. Thereafter, I immediately initiated steps to file the present appeal.

6.

That the delay in filing the present appeal is neither intentional nor due to any malafide intention. The same is solely attributable to the extraordinary and critical medical conditions prevailing in my life, as explained hereinabove.

7. In view of the foregoing, I most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 197 days in filing the present appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.

8.

That the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed there from.

3.

From going through the above affidavit and considering the submissions made by Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) we find that the reasonable cause has prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) and taking a justice oriented approach we hereby condone the delay of 179 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) on 09.07.2024 and 29.07.2024 resulting in the dismissal of appeal. Prayer made for providing one more opportunity. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the observations of the Assessing Officer as well as finding of Ld. CIT(A).

5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an individual and has been assessed u/s 144 r.w.s 254 r.w.s 144B of the Act and in the order dated 15.09.2021 an addition of Rs. 16,25,000/- u/s 69 has been made and against this addition assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 02.11.2021. But thereafter on the given dates of hearing on few occasions assessee seeked adjournment but on the last 2 occasions made no compliance resulting in dismissal of appeal. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has merely affirmed the finding of Ld. AO without dealing with the merits of the case.

6. Under these given facts and circumstances and being fair to both the parties we deem it proper to restore the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Further Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 240 Taxman 133 (Bom HC) and decide in accordance with law. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 01st day of September, 2025.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →