NILESH KIRAN DHOTE,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-3, AMRAVATI

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

3 ITA.No.594/NAG./2024 4. During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) had simply dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of delay without deciding the issue on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act. He submitted that the delay of about 07 months in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) be condoned and the matter may be sent back to the file of learned CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits, by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in the interest of substantial justice.

The Learned DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that rectification proceedings u/sec.154 and appellate proceedings u/sec.250(A) of the Act before the learned CIT(A) are two different proceedings. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of assessee as per the provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961 and pleaded that the order of the learned CIT(A) be upheld.

I have heard rival submissions of both the parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and material placed on record. I find that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee on the ground of delay but not decided the appeal on merits as 4 ITA.No.594/NAG./2024 contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act, according to which, the learned CIT(A) has to give reasons for decision and adjudication thereof. In this connection, I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It has further been held that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown-out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji (supra) and considering the submission of the assessee and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and appropriate to condone the delay of about 07 months in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and remit the matter in issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication on merits, by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the 5 ITA.No.594/NAG./2024 assessee. Needless to say, it is the sole responsibility of the assessee to plead and prove his case in consequential proceedings. The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidence(s) to substantiate his case. I further note that in the event the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and not submitted documentary evidences as called for, the learned CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the matter in issue as per fact and law. Accordingly, the grounds raised

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.02.2025.