SHAMKANT VIKRAM THAKARE,DHULE vs. ITO WARD 1, DHULE

In this respect, the assessee places reliance on the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471] wherein it has been held that "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred".

In view of the above facts and judicial decisions cited, the appellant humbly prays that the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the case may be decided on merits. The appellant would be very grateful if the delay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated on merits.”

We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the averments made in the condonation application. Hon’ble courts by virtue of various judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the appeal filed by the appellant with a delay was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow for the examination of the case on its merits. Having gone through the averments made in the condonation application and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was a ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 213 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the assessee is a Primary School Teacher earning salary income from Z.P. School and also engaged in agricultural activities. Original return of income was filed on 29.05.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,37,490/- and the same was subsequently revised on 15.11.2018. Based on the AIR information available that the assessee has deposited cash to the extent of Rs.33,63,086/- in the saving bank account held with State Bank of India, Betawad Branch, case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act after recording the reasons. Case was assigned to the Jurisdictional Assessing officer who issued statutory notice to the assessee u/s.142(1) of the Act on 14.08.2008. It was submitted by the assessee to treat the return filed by him on 29.05.2018 as return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Thereafter, in response to statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) dated 08.06.2018, the assessee submitted explanation detailing the cash deposited with supporting documents.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that notices of hearing issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went to the old e-mail id of the assessee which was not in use for many years. Further, it was submitted that the notices were also not sent on the e-mail id as per Form No.35. He submitted that it was for this precise reason that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by ld.CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.

Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that ample opportunity was given to the assessee and the assessee failed to avail them, therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should be upheld.

We have heard the rival contentions made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC he dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel that the notices issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went to the old e-mail id which the assessee was not using for many years and further the notices were not issued on the registered e-mail id. Therefore, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.