Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 04.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 01.09.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 185 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit; the assessee’s application is scanned and re-produced below:
Page 4 of 8 Referring to contents of above, Ld. AR submitted that the delay has occurred due to bad health condition of assessee. The assessee has also filed a medical certificate of Govt. Jay Prakash District Hospital, Bhopal. Thus, Ld.
AR submitted that the sole reason of non-compliances before CIT(A) leading to ex-parte dismissal of assessee’s first appeal by CIT(A) as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeal before ITAT was the medical reason of assessee. Ld. AR submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the Page 5 of 8 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 medical reports 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 section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.
On merit of case, the Ld. AR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is ex- parte due to non-representation by assessee and the non-representation occurred due to medical reason of assessee. Further, the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte since the hearings were fixed during Covid-19 period and the assessee was unable to represent. However, the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an Page 6 of 8 opportunity is given. Accordingly, Ld. AR prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for adjudication afresh.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he would not have any objection if the bench takes a call to remand this matter to AO. However, he makes a request to give stricter directions to assessee to make obedient in proceedings. He also requested that the bench should imposed a reasonable cost upon assessee.
In view of above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,500/- by assessee to “Prime Minister Relief Fund” and submission of receipt to AO during proceedings. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 16/12/2025