Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is an individual who claims his bank account was operated by another person, Shivanand Dadu Kumbhar, and an FIR was lodged. The assessee had not filed a Return of Income, and the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 290 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that grave injustice would be caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause to ensure substantial justice.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 148, 144
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 “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT
(A) erred in confirming the Addition of Rs.67,14,090/-made by Assessing officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT
(A) failed to appreciate that addition of Rs.67,14,090/- made by the assessing officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act was not called for.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT
(A) failed to appreciate the fact brought to his notice by appellant vide his affidavit that the account was not operated by appellant but it was operated by one shri Shivanand Dadu kumbhar.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and withdraw any or all grounds of appeal.”
Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that in this case, assessee is an individual, his bank account has been used by some other person called Shivananda Dadu Kumbhar. Assessee has also lodged an FIR against the said person. Ld.AR filed the copy of the FIR. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee has just studied up to “SSC” and is not well- versed with the Income Tax Proceedings. Therefore, Assessee could not file replies in time before the Assessing Officer as well as ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for delay in filing appeal for 290 days. Ld.CIT(A) has ignored the Affidavit which explains the reasons for delay. Ld.AR pleaded that delay may kindly be condoned and case may be set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of AO and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR also stated that copy of FIR is an additional evidence, hence, Department should get an opportunity.
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, as per the assessment order, Assessee had not filed Return of Income. Department received certain information, based on that Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, on 31.02.2021. since there was no compliance, AO passed an assessment order u/s.144 of the Act. Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with delay of 290 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, on ground of Delay.
4.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “ 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
4.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Vs. UOI [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay)[06-11-2017] has observed as under while condoning the delay in that case : Quote ,“ 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay” Unquote.
4.3 On perusal of Affidavit, hearing pleading we are convinced there was sufficient cause. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that grave injustice is caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay, by ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall file all details before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th April, 2025.