Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order of the CIT(A). There was a significant delay of 338 days in filing the appeal. The assessee, being semi-literate and lacking computer knowledge, was allegedly unaware of the proceedings and the impugned order.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the substantial delay but, referencing Supreme Court judgments on condonation of delay, emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay, considering the assessee's explanation as a sufficient cause.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 271(1)(c) of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, Section 253
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Vs ITO, Ward -1(1) Mori Hari Kunj, Station Road Vata Faliyu, Sardarpura, Baruch. jambusar, Baruch, Gujarat PAN – BPAPM0727E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemant Suthar, CA Revenue by Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 12.02.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 338 days in filing present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori.
The Ld. A.O. has passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.12.2019. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal dated 29.11.2019, for A.Y.2012-13 against which the appellant has filed an appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide his order dated 12.02.2024.
As per the provisions of Sec. 253, the appeal was to be filed within 60 days on receipt of the order and thus appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was to be filed by 12.04.2024, considering the date of receipt as 12.02.2024 on which the order is passed. However, the same is being filed today after a delay of 357 days.
It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is a semi- literate person (studied only upto 4th Std.) and has no knowledge of income-tax laws. He also does not have computer knowledge to log on the income-tax portal or to check the e-mail for any) possibility of any communication from the Income-tax Department. Hence, he was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings or the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
4. The appellant came to know about the passing of the appellate order by the Ld. CIT(A) only when the appellant received an order dated 03.02.2025 levying penalty of Rs.9,54,208/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the year under consideration, wherein the Ld. A.O. has mentioned that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide his order dated 12.02.2024. The appellant then approached his Counsels M/s. Mukund & Rohit, Chartered Accountants, Vadodara for their Ld. CIT(A) has already passed the impugned appellate order way back on advice in the matter. They have logged on the Income Tax Portal and found that appellant to file appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 12.02.2024. They have downloaded the order from the Portal and advised the 5. The non-compliances to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings as also the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal have occurred for the reasons narrated above.
Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori.
Considering the merits of the case as also the genuine and bonafide reasons is made to your honours to admit the present appeal condoning the delay under which the appellant was unable to file the appeal in time, a humble request particularly taking into account the fact that for want of adjudication, a proper case on merit shall be deprived the benefit of consideration by appellate authority for the reason of the delay in filing the appeal.
Your appellant while making the above prayer seeks to place reliance on various decisions listed below in support of the view that condonation of delay in filing of appeals may be liberally approached by the appellate authorities: 1. In the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISTIION V. MST. KATIJI – 167 ITR 471 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing a matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately 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 other courts in the hierarchy. 2. 278 ITR 291 (ALL) AUTO CENTRE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS "In matters of condonation of delay a pragmatic view should be taken and there should be a liberal approach. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. Held, that, in the instant case, the assessee-firm had only two partners one of whom was old. The other partner explained Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori. that he had been ill. The illness was not doubted. The delay in filing the appeal has to be condoned. In the case of N. BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY - 7 SCC 123 the apex court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay observing as under: "The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy."
4. In VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. (SC): 44 ALR 577 (SC) the apex court made a distinction in delay and SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL reported in 253 ITR 798 (SC): 125 STC 375 inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach.”
In NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. SHANTI MISRA - AIR 1976 SC 237, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. 6. (1992) 43 TTJ 331 (AHD) GUJARAT TUBE WELL CO. VS. ITO On facts delay of 509 days was condoned." Since the delay has arisen on account of bonafide reasons, the appeal may kindly be allowed to be admitted and proceeded with for which your appellant shall be ever obliged..
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
5. we also noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench that there was ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori. CIT(A). On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the 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.