Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which were delayed. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing it to severe financial stress, unexpected economic challenges post-Covid-19, a downturn in business, diversion of resources to survival and critical operational concerns, and the sudden departure and subsequent replacement of a key employee responsible for compliances. Additionally, a director underwent medical treatment for a cardiac attack, further affecting the company's affairs.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had 'sufficient cause' based on the presented affidavit and supporting documents, supported by legal precedents emphasizing substantial justice. The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals is justifiable due to 'sufficient cause', and if the matters should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Bench:
The captioned four (4) appeals have been filed by assessee against four (4) separate orders of first-appeal dated 24.05.2024/24.05.2024/08.09.2023/ 14.08.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arise out of assessment-orders dated
Page 1 of 6 25.03.2015/31.12.2016/26.12.2019/19.04.2021 passed by DCIT-1(1), Bhopal/ITO-1(5), Bhopal/DCIT-1(1), Bhopal/National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment- Year [“AY”] 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively.
The registry has informed that these appeals are delayed by 225/225/ 469/133 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed all these appeals on a single day i.e. 13.03.2025 against the impugned orders passed by CIT(A) on different dates.
Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee is a family-owned company and it has filed condonation-applications supported by affidavits explaining the reason of delay. He submitted that the reason of delay is identical in all four matters and assessee’s application/affidavit for first AY 2012-13 may be referred. The affidavit filed by assessee for AY 2012-13 is scanned and re- produced below:
Page 3 of 6 Referring to contents of above, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to the reasons as averred in Para 3 to 5 of above affidavit. In so far as the bad health condition of Smt. Rekha Moolani, wife of assessee-company’s director Shri Kishan Lal Moolani, the assessee has filed medical records in Paper-Book. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the reasons of non-compliances before CIT(A) leading to ex-parte dismissal of assessee’s first appeals by CIT(A) as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeals before ITAT are the reasons as mentioned in affidavit. Ld. AR submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He submitted that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for occurrence of delay. He prayed to condone delay. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee in application/affidavit and the supporting documents submitted before us and in view of same, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of Page 4 of 6 section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit these appeals and proceed with hearing.
On merit of case, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned orders of CIT(A) are ex-parte due to non-representation by assessee and the non- representation occurred due to the reasons as mentioned in affidavit.
However, the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given. Accordingly, Ld. AR prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he would not have any objection if the bench takes a call to remand these matters to CIT(A). However, the assessee should be directed to make representation before CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matters are restored at the level of CIT(A), we remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary
Page 5 of 6 adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 16/12/2025