SRI. S V LAKSHMI NARAYANA (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, the appeal was dismissed by Ld.CIT(A) as there was a delay of 151 days in preferring appeal before Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee at the relevant period during when the appeal was to be filed, was held up with medical emergency of his daughter. It has been submitted that assessee had stopped all commercial aspects as he was busy taking care of the daughters medical issues. Assessee has filed the details of medical emergency certificate and the treatment undertaken by Hearst daughter during the relevant period because of which the appeal was filed with a delay.

The Ld.DR could not controvert the above submissions filed by assessee before us.

We have perused the submissions advanced by Ld.AR and the documents filed in support.

From the details filed we note that assessee’s daughter had met with an accident because of which she was under the treatment at the neurosciences clinic. It was because of this period that the appeal could not be filed by assessee within the period of limitation thereby causing a delay of 151 days before Ld.CIT(A). We also are of the view that assessee has not deliberately intended to file the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) belatedly. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, land acquisition vs Mst.Katiji reported in 1987 SC 1353, we condoned the delay of 151 days in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). We, accordingly remand the appeal back to Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues on merits. Assessee is directed to file all relevant documents in support of its claim. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue by grieving proper opportunity to assessee in accordance with law.