DHAIRYASHIL SHRIDHAR GAUD ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), PUNE

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

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small businessman and was not aware of the legal provisions and procedures of the income tax act. He was not properly guided by his previous consultant for which all these unfortunate events happened. He submitted that only after receipt of the high pitch demand order the assessee realized the mistake committed by his consultant. Due to high pitch demand and assessee’s lack of knowledge of the Income Tax Act, he could not file his first appeal within time. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the appeal on the ground that no evidence was produced for the delay. He submitted that evidence could not be submitted for the quarrel between the assessee and the then consultant by any positive evidence. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and various other decisions, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merit.

The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the chronology of events before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC submitted that the assessee has not come forward with any reasonable cause for condoning the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. She submitted that the assessee was receiving huge amount of contract receipts as well as professional receipts and it cannot be said that the assessee is not aware of the income tax provisions. She accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC being justified should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal by 111 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC he dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. A perusal of the record shows that the assessee was very callous in his attitude. He has neither responded to the notice issued u/s 148 nor responded to the notices issued u/s 142 of the Act. Despite reminders by the Assessing Officer, he did not make any submission before the Assessing Officer for which he passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.01.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.40,64,827/-. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC also the assessee did not file the appeal in time for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal being inadmissible. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by filing the requisite details. It is also his submission that in view of the various decisions, a small delay of 111 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned by him and he should have adjudicated the appeal on merit.

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

Following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the issue on merit. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the issue back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee and decide the appeal on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before the 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. At the same time, because of the callous attitude of the assessee before the Assessing Officer in not participating in assessment proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in filing of the appeal with a delay, we levy cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee which shall be deposited within one month from the receipt of this order. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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