HARISH CHANDRA GAVLI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHABUA

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Further, there was also a delay of 133 days in filing first-appeal before CIT(A). Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp.

Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the email id registered in department record and also fetched in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A) is tulsicon@yahoo.com which belongs to assessee’s counsel but asessee’s counsel never informed the assessee about the proceedings due to which the assessee could neither respond to the notices of hearings nor file respective appeals in time. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee’s wife “Smt.

Shanti Satogiya” expired on 06.07.2018 at an early age of 48 years due to cancer, copy of death certificate is filed. Further, the assessee is also a patient of triple vessel cardiac disease, copies of medical documents are filed.

Thus, the assessee is facing difficult challenges which also contributed in taking timely actions. 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 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

Page 2 of 4 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.

However, the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO for a proper adjudication.

Page 3 of 4 and responsibility of assessee. 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.

Order pronounced in open court on 23/09/2025