Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income, which was processed under Section 143(1) leading to an addition and demand. The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed due to a delay of 63 days in filing.
Held
The Tribunal restored the file to the First Appellate Authority with a direction to condone the delay of 63 days and decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 63 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, caused by the medical condition of the authorized representative, constitutes a "sufficient cause" for condonation.
Sections Cited
143(1), 249(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Delhi for Assessment Year 2021-22.
2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Samiti filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2024 declaring a total income of Rs.22,39,055/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and vide intimation/order dated 04.12.2024 made addition/raised a demand of Rs.7,72,970/-.
2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 63 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.
2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeals:
1. That the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income No Tax Act 1961 was issued by CPC Bangalore on 04-12-2024 vide order no. CPC/2122/B5/514307232 intimating appellant the reason for issuing intimation order.
2. That the intimation order passed by CPC Bangalore increased the tax liability by raising a demand of Rs. 7,27,970 for his return of income for the AY 2021-22.
3. That the Id Assessing Officer issued an Issue Letter on 24- 01-2025 vide DIN-ITBA/RCV/F/17/2024-25/ 1072504116 (1) for AY 2021-22 requesting to pay the outstanding demand with interest at the earliest and intimate the same.
4. That no Income has arisen as this a government fund because money is received from U.P government through the governor of U.P.
5. The corpus fund is to be set aside and the welfare scheme is to be initiated from the interest earned. This is meant for the welfare of the State weavers/bunkers and has nothing to do with the furtherance of business so there cannot be and income and expenditure or profit and loss. It is similar to DRDA wherein funds are received from CG, SG and CDO spends those funds on development activities. Therefore, no taxability will arise in Interest earned.
6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making above the additions by not observing the principles of natural justice and raising a demand of total of Rs 7,29,970 excluding penalties on the income returned by the assesse in his income tax return for AY 2021-22.
7. The delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable medical circumstances. The appellant's authorised representative, CA Shri P.K. Misra, suffered a fracture in his left hand, was undergoing treatment for chronic kidney failure at Apollo Hospital, Delhi, and also suffers from Bell's Palsy (facial nerve paralysis), which further limited his ability to work during the relevant period. He has a fistula implanted in his left hand through which the dialysis was done earlier. Due to fistula the blood supply drastically increases and any mild fracture may cause serious implication like heavy bleeding. In the fistula artery and veins are connected in a single line to increase the blood supply velocity, even this hand cannot be used for necessary thongs like to measure the blood pressure. The delay was due to medical grounds. In Bell's Palsy half side of the mouth gets disturbed due to attack of Herpes Virus which happen due to reduction in immunity naturally on taking immunosuppressant medicine. The council is taking Fortix 360*4 and Tacrolimus 7.5 mg daily as both are immunosuppressant and maybe the reason for Bell's Palsy. The doctors had given steroids and other medication and other medication and asked to rest at home alongwith physiotherapy exercise. Usually, Bell's Palsy take 2 to 3 months times to be relived. The counsel adhered to the doctor's advice and mostly remained at home to recover from this disease. Consequently. he was unable to attend office or prepare and file the appeal within the prescribed time. When the counsel joined the office in March the appeal was filed with honorable CIT(A).
8. The CIT(A)-7, Delhi, vide Order u/s 250 dated 11.08.2025 No (DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079470082(1)), dismissed the appeal as not admitted, holding that the reason advanced did not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 249(3).
9. The appellant respectfully submits that the delay was neither No deliberate nor due to negligence but arose solely because of the unforeseen medical condition of the authorised representative, which constitutes a reasonable and bona fide cause. The appellant acted promptly once the representative recovered and immediately filed the appeal.
10. It is submitted that all relevant medical records, doctor's No prescriptions, and hospital documents evidencing the illness and treatment of CA Shri P.K. Misra were duly attached with Form No. 35 and the condonation petition filed before the CIT(A).
11. Further, in a recent and directly relevant decision, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", in the case of Chandra Goswami v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-69(1), Delhi (ITA No. 3230/DEL/2024, order dated 03 February 2025), condoned a delay of nearly two years in filing appeal before the CIT(A), holding that where an assessee had pursued alternate statutory remedies in good faith and the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence, the same constituted "sufficient cause" under the law. The Hon'ble Tribunal emphasized that acceptance of explanation for delay should be the rule and refusal an exception.
12. In light of these facts and the above legal precedents, the appellant humbly prays that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to condone the delay of 63 days, admit the appeal, and direct that it be decided on merits in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. 3.0 None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application moved in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
5.0 I have heard head the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, I restore this file to the Office of the Ld. First Appellate Authority with the direction to condone the delay of 63 days in filing of the appeal and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present its case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Ld. First Appellate Authority would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/12/2025.
Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:31/12/2025 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 Bahbudi Fund Sanchalan Samiti v. The ITO-A GT Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Hns Nagar S.O Kanpur Nagar (U.P) TAN/PAN:AADTB9409M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: None Respondent by: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Delhi for Assessment Year 2021-22.
2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-Samiti filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2024 declaring a total income of Rs.22,39,055/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and vide intimation/order dated 04.12.2024 made addition/raised a demand of Rs.7,72,970/-.
2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 63 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority.
2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeals:
1. That the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income No Tax Act 1961 was issued by CPC Bangalore on 04-12-2024 vide order no. CPC/2122/B5/514307232 intimating appellant the reason for issuing intimation order.
That the intimation order passed by CPC Bangalore increased the tax liability by raising a demand of Rs. 7,27,970 for his return of income for the AY 2021-22.
That the Id Assessing Officer issued an Issue Letter on 24- 01-2025 vide DIN-ITBA/RCV/F/17/2024-25/ 1072504116 (1) for AY 2021-22 requesting to pay the outstanding demand with interest at the earliest and intimate the same.
That no Income has arisen as this a government fund because money is received from U.P government through the governor of U.P.
The corpus fund is to be set aside and the welfare scheme is to be initiated from the interest earned. This is meant for the welfare of the State weavers/bunkers and has nothing to do with the furtherance of business so there cannot be and income and expenditure or profit and loss. It is similar to DRDA wherein funds are received from CG, SG and CDO spends those funds on development activities. Therefore, no taxability will arise in Interest earned.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making above the additions by not observing the principles of natural justice and raising a demand of total of Rs 7,29,970 excluding penalties on the income returned by the assesse in his income tax return for AY 2021-22.
The delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable medical circumstances. The appellant's authorised representative, CA Shri P.K. Misra, suffered a fracture in his left hand, was undergoing treatment for chronic kidney failure at Apollo Hospital, Delhi, and also suffers from Bell's Palsy (facial nerve paralysis), which further limited his ability to work during the relevant period. He has a fistula implanted in his left hand through which the dialysis was done earlier. Due to fistula the blood supply drastically increases and any mild fracture may cause serious implication like heavy bleeding. In the fistula artery and veins are connected in a single line to increase the blood supply velocity, even this hand cannot be used for necessary thongs like to measure the blood pressure. The delay was due to medical grounds. In Bell's Palsy half side of the mouth gets disturbed due to attack of Herpes Virus which happen due to reduction in immunity naturally on taking immunosuppressant medicine. The council is taking Fortix 360*4 and Tacrolimus 7.5 mg daily as both are immunosuppressant and maybe the reason for Bell's Palsy. The doctors had given steroids and other medication and other medication and asked to rest at home alongwith physiotherapy exercise. Usually, Bell's Palsy take 2 to 3 months times to be relived. The counsel adhered to the doctor's advice and mostly remained at home to recover from this disease. Consequently. he was unable to attend office or prepare and file the appeal within the prescribed time. When the counsel joined the office in March the appeal was filed with honorable CIT(A).
The CIT(A)-7, Delhi, vide Order u/s 250 dated 11.08.2025 No (DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079470082(1)), dismissed the appeal as not admitted, holding that the reason advanced did not constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 249(3).
The appellant respectfully submits that the delay was neither No deliberate nor due to negligence but arose solely because of the unforeseen medical condition of the authorised representative, which constitutes a reasonable and bona fide cause. The appellant acted promptly once the representative recovered and immediately filed the appeal.
It is submitted that all relevant medical records, doctor's No prescriptions, and hospital documents evidencing the illness and treatment of CA Shri P.K. Misra were duly attached with Form No. 35 and the condonation petition filed before the CIT(A).
Further, in a recent and directly relevant decision, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench "SMC", in the case of Chandra Goswami v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-69(1), Delhi (ITA No. 3230/DEL/2024, order dated 03 February 2025), condoned a delay of nearly two years in filing appeal before the CIT(A), holding that where an assessee had pursued alternate statutory remedies in good faith and the delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence, the same constituted "sufficient cause" under the law. The Hon'ble Tribunal emphasized that acceptance of explanation for delay should be the rule and refusal an exception.
In light of these facts and the above legal precedents, the appellant humbly prays that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to condone the delay of 63 days, admit the appeal, and direct that it be decided on merits in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. 3.0 None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application moved in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
4.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
5.0 I have heard head the Ld. Sr. D.R. and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, I restore this file to the Office of the Ld. First Appellate Authority with the direction to condone the delay of 63 days in filing of the appeal and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present its case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Ld. First Appellate Authority in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Ld. First Appellate Authority would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/12/2025.