ABHIMAYU ARJUN BHANGIRE,PUNE vs. ITO 14(1), PUNE

There is no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The point is as to whether such a delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay.

Adverting to the facts of the instant appeals, we find that the legal issue of passing the exparte orders dismissing the appeals at the threshold stage has merit in favour of the assessees, which requires readjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances and on going through the averments made by the assessees in the affidavits and nothing contrary disbelieve those averments, we condone the delay occurred in the instant cases in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

Coming to merits, we find that the impugned orders in respect of the instant appeals filed by the respective to 1444/PUN/2024 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire assessees were passed exparte by the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals in limine, without discussing anything on merits of the issues. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessees could not effectively pursue the case before the ld.CIT(A) due to the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee by remanding the cases to the file of ld.CIT(A). Further, the settled position of law mandates that the ld.CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act giving reasons thereof. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and there being no objection from the side of ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give an opportunity to the assessees. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits in the instant appeals are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessees’ are at liberty to adduce any evidence as they deem expedient and ld.CIT(A) shall consider all the submissions of the assessees and pass the orders in conformity with the provisions envisaged u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessees are also directed to provide proper email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessees to 1444/PUN/2024 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire are further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’ are allowed for statistical purposes.