Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for delay without condonation. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a major road accident and hospitalization. The Tribunal perused the affidavit and found sufficient reasons for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural technicalities. Grave injustice was 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 CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay due to a genuine reason like a road accident and hospitalization.
Sections Cited
250, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
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 29.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1 The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay when the appellant was prevented by reasons beyond his control
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs 6989000/- of unsecured loans taken u/s 68 and treated the same as income of the appellant
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of the interest of Rs. 26748/-debited to Profit and Loss account
On the basis of the above said grounds and any other which may be raised during the process of the appeal, the appeal may be allowed and justice should be rendered.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that in this case assessment order was exparte. Similarly, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of delay. Ld.AR invited our attention to Form No.35 filed before the ld.CIT(A) to demonstrate that Assessee had filed Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Ld.AR read out the Affidavit. Ld.AR further submitted that Assessee had a major road accident, as a result was hospitalised for the long period, when these proceedings were going on. Therefore, ld.AR pleaded that one more opportunity may kindly be provided.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of AO and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld.CIT(A) has held as under : “In the present appeal, the appellant has not mentioned any reason for delay in filing appeal. Since, the appellant has not furnished any genuine reason supported with any evidence to that effect, the appeal is dismissed on grounds of late filing of appeal.” 4.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has stated that Assessee has not furnished any reasons for delay. However, on perusal of Form No.35, it is noted that Assessee had filed an Affidavit. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the Assessee and observed that there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
4.2 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. 4.3 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. 4.4 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 25th April, 2025.