Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an illiterate elderly lady, failed to appear before the lower authorities due to ill health and lack of awareness of proceedings. The AO made assessment orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for non-compliance. The appeals to the ITAT were filed with significant delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the "sufficient cause" presented by the assessee, citing her age, ill health, and illiteracy. The appeals were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication subject to payment of costs.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned on grounds of "sufficient cause" due to the assessee's circumstances, and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 54, 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.:
The captioned two appeals have been filed by assessee for assessment-years [“AY”] 2013-14 & 2014-15 against two separate orders of first-appeal dated 19.09.2024 and 16.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of respective assessment-orders dated 03.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-5(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”].
Page 1 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15
The registry has informed that these appeals are delayed by 9 days and 135 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay supported by affidavits on stamp. Referring to contents of same, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a lady; that she has ill health; that she is illiterate and putting only thumb impression on documents; that she did not have any knowledge of ongoing proceedings of first-appeal, which has led to non-representation before CIT(A) as well as delayed filing of these appeals.
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 as mentioned in assessee’s affidavit. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned.
Ld. AR further filed Written-Synopsis in both of these matters which are scanned and re-produced below:
Page 2 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 3 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 4 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 5 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 6 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page 7 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15
Ld. AR prayed the Bench to condone the delays. He further prayed to remand these matters to the file of AO for adjudication afresh as requested in Para 1.11 of Written-Synopsis re-produced above.
Ld. DR for revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection and without controverting the submissions and prayer made by Ld. AR.
We have considered the submissions made by both sides as noted above. So far as delays in filing these appeals are concerned, the assessee has given reasoning that she is a lady; she has ill health; she is illiterate and putting only thumb impression and she did not have any knowledge of ongoing proceedings of first-appeal. In absence of any contrary fact or material on record or rebuttal from revenue’s side, the reasoning given by assessee is accepted. Thus, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeals. 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.
Page 8 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 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 provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are inclined to take a judicious view. At the same time, we also find that the assessee has not made any representation before both of the lower authorities. Therefore, considering entire conspectus of case, we are inclined to condone delay and remand these matters to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- in each matter by assessee to the ‘Prime Minister National Relief Fund’ and filing of proof of such payment to AO.
Needless to mention that the AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders.
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 orders in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Page 9 of 10 & 843/Ind/2024 - AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15
Resultantly, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 17/06/2025