Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT after the CIT(A) disposed of the matter ex-parte. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the severe medical emergency of the assessee's counsel and his son, which prevented them from representing the case.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeal due to the medical complications of their counsel. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee due to the medical emergency of their counsel can be condoned? Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.09.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, 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 144 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit; the same is scanned and re-produced below:
Page 3 of 6 Referring to contents of above, Ld. AR submitted that CA Shri Manohar Jain, who was regular counsel of assessee, suffered a brain stem haemorrhage while on travel to U.K. and he remained in ICU without gaining consciousness. Further, his son CA Ankur Jain had to go outside India on urgent basis and ultimately CA Manohar Jain was brought to India after initial treatment in UK. Even after returning to India, CA Manohar Jain had serious physical challenges and had to be hospitalized time and again for treatment. Ld. AR has filed a bunch of medical reports to substantiate the factum of medical emergency having happened during the relevant time when the first-appeal of assessee was fixed for hearing. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the sole reason of non-compliance before CIT(A) as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeal was the medical complications of consel of assessee. 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 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
Page 4 of 6 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 complications of counsel. 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 this matter to CIT(A). However, he makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
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 CIT(A), we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The Page 5 of 6 CIT(A) 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 CIT(A) 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 in open court on 28/11/2025