ISHVARBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC, DELHI

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed this appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that assessment order was passed on 08.04.2023, but the appellant had filed appeal on 23.10.2023, which was delayed by 162 days. The appellant had acknowledged this delay in Form No.35. The reason for condonation of delay was that the AR did not inform about assessment proceedings about the subsequent demand notices. Then assessee approached another tax consultant after which the whole facts came to knowledge. The CIT(A) relied upon various decisions and observed that the appellant had failed to come forth with any substantial clarification to support the applications for condonation elaborating in the backdrop of sufficient reason that would justify condonation of delay involved in preferring of such appeal. The CIT(A) held that the appellant had not shown any sufficient cause for delay in filing appeal. He, therefore, did not admit the appeal and dismissed the same in limine.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book containing pages 1 to 32. He submitted that assessee is an old man of 77 year. The assessee is uneducated and was carrying on agricultural activities. The assessee was not aware of procedure under Income-tax matter. After three to four months, when tax consultant /AY.2015-16 Ishvarbhai Lallubhai Patel was asked about the progress in this matter, no proper and satisfactory response was given and therefore assessee got his file back from his and had given it to another tax consultant. The new Consultant after making study of the file, advised him to file belated appeal against assessment order and make request to condone the delay before CIT(A). The CIT(A) denied condonation of the delay and dismissed the appeal of assessee. The ld. AR submitted that that AO has passed an order u/s 144 of the Act. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 of the Act on 14.08.2024 wherein the delay was not condoned by him. The ld. AR contended that assessee could not represent his case before CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control. He requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the issue back to file of AO for fresh assessment on merit in the interests of justice. He has relied upon various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunals.

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submitted that assessee was negligent and careless during the appellate proceedings; hence, the order of CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has been non-compliant to the statutory notices and the show cause notice issued to him by the AO. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and passed the order u/s 250 of the /AY.2015-16 Ishvarbhai Lallubhai Patel Act without discussing anything on merit by observing that the delay of 162 days was not properly explained. We find that assessee is an uneducated senior citizen, aged 77 years. He was engaged in sale of vegetables grown in his own agricultural land. He was not properly advised by his old Consultant during the assessment proceedings and after passing of assessment order. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice would call for giving another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The expression "sufficient cause" used in section 253(5) of the Act is sufficiently elastic to enable the Tribunal to apply the law which subserves the ends of justice. It has been held in a number of cases that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO re-examines the entire issue afresh subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the “Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Surat Bench, Surat” within two weeks from receipt of this order. Subject to payment of above cost, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more /AY.2015-16 Ishvarbhai Lallubhai Patel vigilant and diligent and to furnish all details and explanations as needed by the AO by not seeking adjournment without valid reasons. With these directions, the grounds of appeal