KULDEEP SINGH,VPO DILLOW WALI, DISTT. KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

At the outset, it is noted that the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed with a delay of 370 days. The assessee has submitted an application, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the delay. It was submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period owing to bona fide reasons and financial difficulties. The Ld. AR pleaded that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and prayed that the same may kindly be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay and relied on the principle of limitation being mandatory.

I have considered the rival submissions on the issue of condonation. It is well settled that while dealing with matters of condonation, a liberal approach is required to advance substantial justice rather than defeating it on technical grounds. In the facts of the present case, I find that the assessee has demonstrated reasonable and bona fide cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], I find that sufficient cause has been made out. Accordingly, the delay of 370 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had moved a request before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that due to severe financial hardship it was not possible to deposit the admitted tax as contemplated under section 249(4) of the Act. It was argued that such hardship constituted a good and sufficient reason, and the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the same before treating the appeal as non-maintainable. Reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents to contend that the appellate authority is duty-bound to examine whether the assessee has demonstrated reasonable cause for exemption from strict compliance. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in the absence of payment of admitted taxes, the appeal could not be entertained and the order of dismissal called for no interference. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by invoking the rigours of section 249(4) of the Act without adverting to the plea of financial hardship raised by the assessee. The provisions of law enjoin upon the appellate authority the duty to examine whether good and sufficient reasons have been made out by the assessee for seeking relaxation from the requirement of depositing the admitted taxes. 7.1 In the totality of the circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file with a direction to consider the request of the assessee for exemption from deposit of tax in the light of the hardship pleaded. The ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law. 7.2 It is hereby clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case, and all issues are left open for adjudication by the learned CIT(A) in accordance with law.

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