Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 991 days against an order passed under Section 143(1). The delay was attributed to the assessee's accountant absconding, disturbances caused by COVID-19, and the assessee becoming aware of the intimation only upon receiving a demand letter for Rs. 35 lakhs.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of natural justice. The tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether there was 'sufficient cause' to condone a delay of 991 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
143(1), 253(5), 273, 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A), Udaipur [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070874463(1) dated 04.12.2024 for the A.Y.2018-19 arising out of the order passed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 31.01.2020.
(A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust 2. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”], inviting our attention to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 991 days in filing the appeal stating that submissions are vague and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Ld. AR submitted before us that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no such sufficient cause is established. Further, Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the submissions properly and without giving any reasons for not condoning the delay and except stating that submissions are vague, rejected the condonation petition. Ld.AR submitted that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding on merits and pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee in the interest of justice.
3. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] strongly placed reliance on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the condonation petition. Ld. DR strongly opposed for condonation of delay.
4. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below: - “1. The Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act in the case of appellant was issued on 31.01.2020. As such, the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 01.03.2020. However, the appellant could file the appeal only on 17.11.2022 resulting in a delay of 991 days in filing the appeal.
Page No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust 2. The appellant is running a polytechnic college. The books of account and the tax related matters are looked after by the accountant cum computer operator Sri Naidu Ramana. The filing of returns and other statutory forms of the appellant trust are done with the professional assistance of a firm of Chartered Accountants in the town namely DSR Associates. The return of income for A.Y.2018-19 was filed with the help of the above said firm and they have registered their email ID viz dsrassociates@gmail.com at the time of filing the return of income. Even the registration in the e-filing portal was done by the said DSR Associates firm.
The above said accountant Sri Naidu Ramana absconded from 09.06.2022 and his whereabouts are not known till now. Copy of the complaint filed by his wife with police is enclosed herewith. Even before that, the accountant was probably under some stress and therefore did not discharge his duties property. Added to this, there was lot of disturbance on account of COVID restrictions for nearly 2 years from April 2020 onwards. The appellant society was heavily dependent on its accountant and consequently was not used to making independent follow up with the Chartered Accountant regarding the status of the returns filed. As a result, the appellant could not know that the return filed was processed by the CPC.
While it is so, on 03.11.2022 the appellant received by registered post a letter intimating the outstanding demand of Rs.35,11,925 raised in the case of appellant for A.Y.2018-19 on account of Intimation u/s 143(1) passed on 31.01.2020. It was only at this point of time that the appellant came to know about the Intimation.
5. Without further loss of time, the appellant took necessary steps and filed the appeal on 17.11.2022. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore the appellant prays the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to kindly condone the said delay of 991 days and to pass appropriate orders in the interests of rendering substantial justice.”
We notice that the moot question to be adjudicated is with respect to condonation of delay. Broadly, we are of the view, that the Courts and the quasi- judicial bodies are empowered to condone the delay, if a litigant satisfies the Courts that there was sufficient reason for availing the remedy after the expiry of limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reasons” as provided in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act 1963,
Page No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust and in CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income Tax Act such as section 273, 274, etc. Keeping in mind, the authoritative pronouncement from Hon’ble Apex Court, it is admitted position that the words “sufficient cause” appearing in sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concern. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him, unless and until, it makes a mala-fide or a dilatory statutory, the court must show utmost consideration to such litigant. Further the length of delay is immaterial, it is the acceptability of the explanation and that is the only criteria for condoning the delay.
In such a situation, no doubt filing of an appeal is a right granted under the statute to the assessee and is not an automatic privilege, therefore, the assessee is expected to be vigilant in adhering to the manner and mode in which the appeals are to be filed in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act. Nevertheless, a liberal approach has to be adopted by the appellate authorities, where delay has occurred for “bona fide reasons” on the part of the assessee or the Revenue in filing the appeals. In matters concerning the filing of appeals, in exercise of the statutory right, a refusal to condoned the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold, which may lead to miscarriage of justice. The Page No. 4 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in a celebrated decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji& Ors. [167 ITR 471] opined that when technical consideration and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the courts are expected to further the cause of substantial justice. This is for the reason that an opposing party, in a dispute, cannot have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. Therefore, it follows that while considering matters relating to the condonation of delay, judicious and liberal approach is to be adopted. If “sufficient cause” is found to exist, which is bona-fide one, and not due to negligence of the assessee, the delay needs to condoned in such cases. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply law in a meaningful manner, which sub-serves the end of justice- that being the life purpose of the existence of the institution of the courts. When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. This means that there should be no malafide or dilatory tactics. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji& Ors. (167 ITR 471) observed as under:-
“3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately
Page No. 5 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sri Vinayaka Educational Trust elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the others courts in the hierarchy.”
In the light of the above judicial pronouncements and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the lis between the parties be decided on merits and no person should be condemned unheard. Therefore, the delay on the part of the assessee in filing appeal before Ld.CIT(A) is condoned and the appeal is remanded back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. It is needless here to mention that before passing the order of assessment, Ld. CIT(A) shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th August, 2025.