Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred three appeals against orders of CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16. The appeals were clubbed due to common factual matrix. The assessee faced personal hardships, including wife's cancer treatment and family issues, which led to a delay in filing the appeals.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the substantial justice principle over technicalities. The appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case, as the initial orders were passed without properly considering the submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals is to be condoned and whether the CIT(A) erred by disposing of the appeals without considering the assessee's submissions.
Sections Cited
69, 143(3), 147, 57, 68, 80CCF
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
(Assessment Year: 2012-2013) (Assessment Year:2013-2014) & Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma 801, Park Avenue Marhaba CHS, Opp. Gate No.5, Arya Vidya Mandir School, Juhu, Mumbai – 400049. Maharashtra. [PAN:AADPS3507M] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Circle 34(2), Mumbai C-12/ 1st Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 40051. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Conclusion of hearing : 13.01.2026 Pronouncement of order : 19.01.2026 O R D E R [ Per Bench: 1. These are three appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. Since the appeals involved identical issues arising from common factual matrix the same were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of a common order.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material on record including the grounds raised by the Assessee in the present appeal, application seeking condonation of delay alongwith the accompanying affidavit and the orders passed by the authorities , 7217&7218/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 below.
[Assessment Year 2012-2013] 3. We would first take up appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 25/04/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-2013.
The registry has marked delay of 494 days in filing the present appeal. In the application seeking condonation of delay the Assessee has requested that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and has provided the following explanation which is supported by the sworn affidavit of the Assessee:
“I, Mahesh Pyarelal Sharma, Hindu Indian inhabitant do solemnly affirm as under: 1.-3. xx xx 4. That my wife was detected with cancer immediately before notices for assessment were received and had commenced treatment for the same.
5. That I was employed out of Mumbai and had to travel to Mumbai for short visit to take her to hospital for treatment and hence was unable to attend to the notices and income details during the assessment proceedings. Further, I was also mentally disturbed, leading to additions being made in the assessment.
6. That I had filed submissions before the Ld CIT(A) on to 10/04/2019.
That I had filed all submissions before the Ld CIT(A), Mumbai.
That the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre on its implementation and re-filed the submissions electronically. Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 9. That I have my only son who is married after which due to misunderstandings within the family, had severed relationship with my wife and me and took transfer of his job outside Mumbai and is living separately.
That this development and the fact that my spouse was a cancer survivor was stressful and it was affecting her health and medical treatment was ineffective.
That I was advised to be among family and close relatives to de-stress myself.
I shifted to Pathankot my home town for treatment/recuperation of my spouse who was afflicted with cancer as we are both senior citizen and it was convenient to be with any siblings / family which will help de-stress.
13. Ld CIT (A) had erroneously stated that no details were filed and passed order without considering the details submitted.
14. That I am not tech savvy and hence my tech account was handled by my son.
That having shifted to Pathakot and my son having deserted me and not being tech savvy I had asked our family friend a semi qualified person to look into my appeal matter. The same being in electronic form and that it would be convenient for me. That the order was passed of which I was I had unaware of the same and was not intimated by the person to whom entrusted the job.
16. That I was engaged with treatment of my spouse and fully occupied to keep her de-stressful-to erase the memory of separation of her son with whom she was very attached.
17. That I realised the same when I got a recovery notice in connection with the tax arrears.
That it was then that I approached my erstwhile consultant to attend to the matter and to file an appeal for the same.
That I request condonation of the unintentional delay.
That non condonation for delay in filing the appeal will entail severe hardship and huge liabilities with the already stressful life I am living.
That on the basis of submission and based on the merits Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 of the case I am confident of the order in my favour. The ld ClT (A) has not considered the same and has stated that the submissions has not been filed.
That the delay is unintentional and was due to I being unaware of the same and also the unstable state of my mind due to health issues of my spouse and family matter that I was caught up with fully' 23. That the delay may be condoned as the same were due to circumstances and were not intentional.”
On perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay and the accompanying affidavit we are of the view that the Assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. 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. We have no reason to disbelieve the explanation offered by the Assessee. Therefore, accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee to be reasonable, we condone the delay of 494 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal.
As regards merits of the additions is concerned, the Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in [Assessment Year 2012-2013] :
“1. The Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 of Rs.3,98,952/- as unexplained and unaccounted income under Section.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Interest income. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has filed necessary details. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.
2. The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.86,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Fixed deposits. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant wherein the whole amount has been fully explained. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.
The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.21,92,000/- as income from undisclosed Source u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being cash deposits. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant wherein the whole amount has been fully explained. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.
4. The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.20,000/- by disallowing deduction claimed under Section.80CCF Infra Bonds. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant wherein the said sum has been fully explained. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.”
7. On perusal of the above grounds, we find that it has been, inter alia, contended by the Assessee that the Learned CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal without considering the submissions filed by the Assessee during the appellate proceedings. On perusal of the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) we find that the grounds raised by the Assessee have rejected for lack of supporting evidence and submission. In the affidavit filed by the Assessee along with application seeking condonation of delay the Assessee has mentioned that he was traversing through tough times in personal life on account of disharmony in the family and medical issues faced by his wife. Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Therefore, the Assessee had some difficulty in making representation once the appeal got transfer to the National Faceless Appeal Centre under faceless regime. Further, even the submission filed by the Assessee were not considered by the Learned CIT(A). Given the aforesaid, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant the Assessee another opportunity to make out his case on merits before the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the Order, dated 25/04/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(A) dismissing appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 is set aside. The Assessee is directed to file details, documents & submission in support of his claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. In case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing, the Learned CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record. In terms of the aforesaid, grounds raised by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
[Assessment Year 2015-2016] 9. We would now take up appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Since the facts and circumstances prevailing during the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are identical to Assessment Year 2012-2013, our finding/adjudication in appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeals.
10. Appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 has been preferred by the Assessee against order, dated 25/04/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(A) whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.
“1. The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.6,12,600/- as deduction under Section.57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Interest income. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has filed necessary details. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.
2. The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.35,50,000/- as unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Fixed deposits. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant wherein the whole amount has been fully explained. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.”
12. Appeal for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 has preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 25/04/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(A) whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in [Assessment Year 2015-2016] :
“1. The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- as deduction under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Interest income. The ld. Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant. The appellant has filed necessary details. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.
2. The ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming an addition of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Fixed deposits. The ld. CIT(A) has not considered submissions made by the appellant wherein the whole amount has been fully explained. The appellant respectfully submits that the additions of this sum may kindly be deleted.”
In facts and circumstances identical to Assessment Year 2012-2013, the appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 got to be filed after a delay of 495 and 495 days, respectively. Accepting the explanation offered by the Assessee to be reasonable, we condone the delay in filing the aforesaid appeals.
15. On merits, we find that in facts and circumstances identical to Assessment Year 2012-2013, the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 observing that the Assessee had failed to file submissions and supporting documents during the appellate proceedings. In the grounds raised in both the appeals the Assessee has contended that the CIT(A) has failed to consider the submission and supporting documents filed by the Assessee. Therefore, adopting the reasoning given while adjudicating appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-2013, Accordingly, the Order, dated 25/04/2024, and 25/04/2024 passed by the Learned CIT(A) dismissing appeal for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, respectively, is set aside. The Assessee is directed to file details, documents & submission in support of his claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee in both the appeals afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Assessment Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 Application Portal. In case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing, the Learned CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record. In terms of the aforesaid, grounds raised by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion all the three appeals preferred by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.