Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a semi-literate agriculturist, failed to file appeals within the prescribed time for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, resulting in a delay of 3092 days. The delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, including reliance on a tax consultant who stopped services without notice and a lack of awareness of the assessment and appellate orders. The property of the assessee was later attached by the Income Tax Department, leading him to discover the outstanding demands and the ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's semi-literate status and the circumstances beyond his control that led to the delay, condoned the delay of 3092 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the delay was not due to negligence but due to the fault of the tax professional engaged by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee, a semi-literate agriculturist, caused by circumstances beyond his control and the negligence of his tax consultant, can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and if so, whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 5 of the Limitation Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.: Captioned two appeals filed by the same assessee, pertaining to different Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13, are directed against the separate orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot, both dated 02.01.2017, which in turn arose out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2014 and 13.03.2015.
&571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 2. Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. These two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12, and A.Y. 2012-13 are barred by limitation by 3092 days. The assessee has moved separate petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay are similar and identical for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the sufficient cause narrated in AY 2011-12, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above condonation petitions, en masse. The sample contents of petition for condonation of delay, in are as follows:
“1. In the present case, the appellate order u/s. 250 was passed on 02.01.2017. The appellant does not have the exact date of receipt of the order since, as per his records, the order was never received by him. From the date of passing of the appellate order, the appeal was required to be filed latest by 03.03.2017.
However, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period due to circumstances beyond his reasonable control. The appellant is a semi- literate agriculturist by occupation and possesses no knowledge of the provisions of the Income Tax Act or the procedures thereunder.
The appellant had engaged a local tax consultant to handle his income-tax matters and he had to completely rely on that consultant. Every income tax-related matter was looked after by him only. After completion of assessment proceeding, he had already filed an appeal before the CIT(A) in Form-35. As the appellant was not conversant enough to Income Tax Act and procedures thereunder, he had no real idea of assessment order as well as appeal filed thereafter, before the Hon'ble CIT(A). Thereafter, the dispute arose between the appellant and their local consultant on account of the payment of professional fees and the said consultant stopped extending his services without notifying the appellant and without even informing him about the status of the proceedings in the case of the appellant.
Thereafter, the consultant chose not to appear or respond to the notices issued in the appellate proceedings in the case of appellant. As the consultant never apprised the appellant of these developments, the appellant remained completely unaware of the assessment order, the demand raised, as well as the subsequent appellate proceedings thereafter.
Page 2 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 5. Consequently, there was no compliance with any of the notices of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the appellate order was passed an ex-parte order, and therefore the appeal could not be filed before this Hon'ble ITAT within the prescribed statutory time limit.
6. It was only recently, during the process of selling of agricultural land of the appellant, that he came to know about the attachment of the said land by the Income Tax Department. When this issue arose, he immediately approached the Income Tax Department and the office of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) concerned. Upon verification, the TRO informed about the outstanding demands reflected on the e-filing portal for Assessment Years 2011- 12 in case of the appellant. Upon further inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the appellant about the passing of the order of Id. CIT(A) in an ex-parte manner. Upon requesting the remedial actions available for the said issue, he was advised to consult a senior chartered accountant or an advocate. Acting upon such advice, the appellant approached a senior Chartered Accountant firm, who, upon examining the case of the appellant, advised to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT with a prayer for condonation of delay.
Since the appellant neither had a copy of the appellate order nor was it traceable on the e-filing portal, he made inquiries with his earlier tax consultant. However, due to the considerable passage of time since the order was passed, he too could not recollect the matter. It appears that he may have received the order somewhere back in 2017, but negligently misplaced it without informing the appellant of its existence and without taking any further action in the matter. Subsequently, upon realizing this, the appellant approached the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and applied for a copy of the order, which was provided by the AO.
After obtaining the appellate order as above, the appellant provided the same to the newly appointed CA. Accordingly, under their guidance, this appeal is being filed.
It is understood that the appeal is belated by more than 8 years. However, it is respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the legal position that in the matter of condonation of delay, the cause of the delay and not the length of delay should be considered. In this regard, the appellant relies upon the relevant portion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-8436 Of 2024) wherein it was held as under: "It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned."
10. The delay was neither willful nor due to any negligence on the part of the appellant. It was purely unintentional and arose due to circumstances beyond his control, as detailed above. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the case of the appellant deserves sympathetical consideration as he is a semi-literate farmer.
11. It is humbly submitted that substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. Therefore, it is earnestly prayed to Your Honour to kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice and oblige.
Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 12. The courts and tribunals have consistently held that in the matter of condonation of delay, a pragmatic and liberal approach should be taken. The Supreme Court also held the same in the case of Investment Trust v. Ujagarsingh that unless mala fides or gross negligence is evident, delays should be condoned, and appeals should not be dismissed solely on technical grounds of delay and they should be ordinarily decided on merits.
It is humbly submitted that the rejection of the appeal on the ground of delay would be very harsh, as the delay was on account of a reason beyond the control of the appellant. He has taken utmost care in ensuring that the period of delay is reduced to the maximum possible extent. In this regard, he may quote the following observation of M. P. High Court in the case of Steel Ingots (86 Taxmann 440). "The eventual destination of every litigation is justice, and as such technicality should not be permitted to prevail as speed breaker in the course of dispensation of justice."
The Hon'ble Gujarat HC has also considered this aspect of condonation of delay in case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (283 ITR 149) and held that... "The position in law is well settled that an assessee should be granted due relief where it is due without standing on technicalities and the revenue must bear the established legal position in mind while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay. It is necessary that liberal approach is adopted in such a matter so as to ensure that substantive rights are not defeated on the basis of technicalities or limitation."
15. Most importantly, the reliance is also placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Rajkot ITAT wherein Your Honour considered the fact that the delay in appeal filing was not attributable to the assessee but due to the incompetence/fault of the person handling tax proceedings, for which the assessee should not suffer. On this reasoning, Your Honour condoned the delay in appeal filing: ➤ Pravinbhai Karshanbhai Rathod (ITA No.289/RJT/2025 decision dated 15.05.2025) ➤ Chitravad Sayunkta Vividh Karyakari Sahkari Mandali Ltd. (ITA No. decision dated 16.05.2025) 16. In view of the above facts and judicial pronouncements, the appellant humbly requests Your Honour to kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal on merits and oblige. For this act of kindness, he shall remain obliged forever.
4. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee under consideration is a farmer and semi -literate person, who does not know about the income tax proceedings, and impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) was received on 12.09.2025. Before the assessing officer, the assessee did not appear, as notices of hearing were not served on the assessee. The assessee was also not aware about the passing of the order of Ld.CIT(A), however, when the assessee sold agricultural land Page 4 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay then the assessee came to know that there was order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), as the land was attached by the income tax authority, against the demand raised on the assessee. Then-after the assessee obtained the order of ld.CIT(A) and filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, such huge delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, has resulted because of the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and since the both these appeals filed by the assessee, pertain to the same assessee. There are ex-parte orders in both the assessment years, that is, at assessment stage and appellate stage. The assessee wants to submit the additional evidences before the assessing officer. Therefore, both these appeals may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, Ld. Senior DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee was negligent in filing the appeal therefore delay should not be condoned. However, ld.Sr-DR for the revenue further argued that while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause is always on the assessee, and there is no presumption that the delay occasioned in the filing of the appeal is always bona fide and the condonation of delay is not the matter of right. In the instant case, the assessee failed to prove the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee submitted before the Bench, copy of letter of revocation of attachment, order and release of immovable property in the case of the assessee, dated 22.10.2025, which is reproduced below:
Page 5 of 14 Page 6 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 7. Revocation of attachment, order in case of co-owner is reproduced below:
Page 7 of 14 Page 8 of 14 Page 9 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 8. Then after, the assessee, wrote a letter dated 08.09.2025, to the Income Tax Officer, to provide him copy of appellate order under section 250 of the Act and assessment orders for assessment years 2011–12 and assessment year 2012–13, the said letter is reproduced below:
Page 10 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay 9. From the events narrated above, in the assessee`s case under consideration, it is abundantly clear that delay of 3092 days in filing the appeal, was not on account of negligent approach of the assessee, but due to circumstances beyond his control, as mentioned above. The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the, delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words "sufficient cause” for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In Ramlal, & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant has to explain whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules.
In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystalized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction. In Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram (AIR 1917 PC 156] it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the assessee acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. From the petition for condonation of delay, reproduced above, we find that a part delay in filing, the appeal has occurred due to mistake committed by the Advocate/CA of the assessee, for which the assessee Page 11 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay should not be penalised. Reliance is also placed on the decision of I.T.A.T., 'C' Bench, Kolkata in the case of M/s. Garg Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. DCIT [ITA Nos.2519 to 2521/Kol/2017, order dated 18.04.2018], wherein under similar set of facts and reasons, the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to condone the delay of 211 days by holding as under: "3. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the considered opinion that assessee was under a bona fide belief that the impugned order of Pr. CIT was not appealable before this Tribunal since they were not advised by their Tax Consultants about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised them to file an appeal, the assessees immediately took steps to file the appeals. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was occurred because of the wrong advice of the Tax Professional for which assessees cannot be penalized. For the ends of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
We are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we have to do justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others , reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes ....
“4. 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.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. We note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these two appeals. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, Page 12 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay, in both these appeals.
Since we have condoned the delay in filing both these appeals and noted that assessee neither appeared before the assessing officer, nor before the ld. CIT(A), and now assessee wants to submit fresh documents and evidences to prove his claim before the assessing officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee.
13. The ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
14. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144/143(3) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh Page 13 of 14 &571/Rjt/2025 Mayurbhai Hirabhai Sindhay on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2025.