Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) due to a delay of 391 days in filing, which the assessee attributed to suffering from cancer and poor health.
Held
The ITAT held that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay, given the assessee's poor health, and adjudicated the appeals on merits. The matter was restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring a meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals for delay without condoning it, despite the assessee citing poor health as the reason for the delay.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav
: Asst.Year 2010-2011 Sri.Vaniya Kandiyil Kunhabdulla The Income Tax Officer C/o.Avinash, Kannothumchal Ward-2 v. Road, P.O.Chovva Kannur. Kannur – 670 692. PAN : DHFPK8879E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by:Sri.R.Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025. O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, JM : Both these appeals filed by the assessee are arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 6th January, 2023 andit relates to assessment years2009-2010 and 2010-2011, having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048504813(1)and No.1048495105(1), respectively.
At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee pointed out that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the delay of 391 days happened before the ld.CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that in para 2.5 at page 5 of the ld.CIT(A), there is a mention of poor health of the assessee, citing suffering from Cancer and therefore, there was a delay of 391 days before the ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the matter on merits. Hence, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to say, the ld.CIT(A) would grant meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2025.