KRASHAK SAHYOG SANSTHAN,BEGAMGANJ vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Feeling aggrieved by order dated 23.10.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal [“CIT(E)”] by which the assessee’s application for grant of final u/s 80G(5) of Income-tax Act, 1961 has been rejected, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Hon'ble CIT(Exemption) is unjust & bad in law.

The registry has informed that the present appeal has been filed on 15.02.2025 against impugned order dated 23.10.2023 and therefore time- barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. The affidavit is scanned and re-produced below:

Referring to contents of above affidavit, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s previous counsel CA Kapil Gurnani was diagnosed with cancer and unable to attend assessee’s work, therefore there occurred non- representation before CIT(E) as well as delayed filing of this appeal. Ld. AR also filed medical documents of Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai to substantiate assessee’s submission. Ld. AR very humbly 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 further submitted that the sole reason of delay is the illness of assessee’s previous counsel. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, 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 Page 4 of 6 Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

Ld. AR next submitted that the CIT(E) has impugned order ex-parte to assessee because of non-submission of details/documents called for but the non-submission occurred due to previous counsel having been diagnosed with cancer and not able to attend assessee’s work. Ld. AR submitted that in the situation, it would be judicious to restore this case at the level of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh.

Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the submission of Ld. AR but requested to direct the assessee to ensure participation before CIT(E).

Considering the submissions of learned Representatives, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(E) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(E) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(E) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.