Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 22 days, citing age and consultant's unfamiliarity with procedures. The original assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, with additions made on account of unexplained cash deposit, interest, and income from house property. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of evidence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 22 days, citing the assessee's age and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, including the issue of non-mentioning of DIN in the assessment order.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to decide on the merits of the case, including the non-mentioning of DIN in the assessment order.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 250, 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Addl/JCIT(A), Gurugram u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.
Registry informed that there is delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Application for condonation of delay has been filed stating that assessee is a senior citizen aged 70 years and his regular consultant was not well versed with the procedures of filing the appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, assessee took some time for search for counsel practicing in ITAT and this process resulted in delay in filing the appeal. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) he submitted that delay deserves to be condoned when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
We have heard both the sides and gone through the averments made in the condonation application. Hon’ble courts in plethora of 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 second appeal filed by the appellant 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 ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 22 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
On merits of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that inspite of assessee having been provided with proper notices of hearing, neither the assessee could appear nor he could file any detail to plead the grounds of appeal raised against the additions made by ld. AO aggregating to Rs.10,49,879/- for the unexplained cash deposit, interest amount and income from house property. Therefore, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and remit the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to which ld. Departmental Representative did not opposed the request.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was framed on 23.12.2019 assessing income at Rs.15,02,749/- wherein additions to the tune of Rs.10,49,879/- were made. Assessee challenged the additions before ld.CIT(A) but failed to file necessary evidence. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal merely affirming the assessment order passed by AO by observing as under :
“5.4 In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the AO are incorrect. As stated above no documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the assertions made by appellant in its statement of facts and ground of appeal have been filed during the appellate proceedings to disprove the finding of the AO and to show as to how the AO is incorrect in facts and law in making addition on this ground. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no infirmity is observed in the order of the AO. Thus, I find no merit in this ground of appeal taken by the appellant and accordingly the same is rejected/dismissed.”
6. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal making a prayer to set aside the impugned order and restoring the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) by granting one more opportunity of being heard.
We therefore considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to restore the effective grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee including the legal issue raised on non- mentioning of DIN in the body of assessment order to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025.