Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the first-appeal order after a delay of 174 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's Parkinson's disease and his counsel's paralytic attack, supported by medical documentation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a "sufficient cause" based on the medical conditions of the assessee and his counsel, and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned due to "sufficient cause" and whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
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 18.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 10.03.2015 passed by learned ITO-2(3), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, 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 filed on 07.11.2024 against impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by CIT(A) after a delay of 174 days 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. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that the assessee has stated that he has been suffering from disease called “Parkinson” for past three years and the illness has been progressively increasing with the passage of time limiting assessee’s physical and cognitive abilities. Further, the counsel of assessee Shri Nand Kishore Malviya also suffered a paralytic attack and has been undergoing medical treatment as well as therapy. The assessee has filed a bunch of medical prescriptions of Dr. Nirendra Kumar Roy, Neurocity Hospital, Bhopal in support of his own illness and Apollo Hospital, Bhopal in support of illness of his counsel. 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 and assessee’s counsel. He submitted that there is a “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 5 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 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.
Ld. AR next drew us to the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and demonstrated that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by wrongly stating that the notices of hearings fixed on various dates, sent by him remained uncompiled with by assessee. Ld. AR carried us to Pages 5 to 11 of Paper-Book where the acknowledgements downloaded from e-filing portal of Income-tax dated 26.05.2022, 19.01.2023, 02.05.2023, 18.05.2023, 07.12.2023 are filed. Referring to same, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the assessee has filed as many as five replies to CIT(A). Further referring to contents of those replies, Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee filed all documentary evidences to CIT(A), copies of the documentary evidences filed by assessee are also filed at Pages 12 – 38 of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and the AO has made additions of cash deposits (+) credit entries found in bank a/c but the evidences filed by assessee are contemporary and sufficient
Page 3 of 5 evidences to explain the sources and nature of deposit and credit entries. Ld.
AR requested to take an appropriate call considering the documents of assessee.
Ld. DR for revenue drew us to Para 4 and 5 of assessment-order to show that the assessee has not filed evidences before AO. Therefore, Ld. DR proposed that the present matter may be remanded back to the file of AO for consideration afresh with a clear direction to assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Considering 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, at the risk 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.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 06/06/2025