BHAVARSINH ANESINH RAJPUT,ANJAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

Therefore the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to medical emergency, assessee used to visit frequently hospital and there was a tension environment in the family due to prolonged disease in the family, therefore assessee could not pay attention on the taxation matters and therefore could not file the appeal before the Tribunal on time. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has submitted medical papers and medical certificates which clearly shows that due to prolonged disease and medical urgency, the assessee could not pay attention to file the appeal on time before the Tribunal. Therefore ld. Counsel contended that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted that assessee has failed to prove sufficient cause for condonation of delay and medical urgency is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay. In the absence of reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is further submitted that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajput & 388 /RJT/2025 (AY : 2009-10) 4 the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned.

We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that assessee submitted before us medical papers and medical certificates. We have examined the medical papers and medical certificates and noted that due to prolonged disease, assessee could not file the appeal before this Tribunal on time. Due to prolonged disease, there was a tension environment in the family. We note that power to condone the delay is discretionary and the discretion must be judicially exercised. If there was no sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period, the delay may not be condoned. However, the words ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice where no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the applicant [Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366].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, and the type of case. The words "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the appellant. We note that medical ground is a sufficient cause to condone delay.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 this appeal. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. Therefore we condone the delay in filing both these appeals.

On the other hand, Ld. D.R. for the Revenue did not have any objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication, however he stated that on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, a cost of Rs.3,000/- may be imposed on the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 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. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not Bhavarsinh Anesinh Rajput & 388 /RJT/2025 (AY : 2009-10) 6 discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. However, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs.3,000/- on the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. 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 order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh 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. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.

Since, we have remitted the quantum appeal of assessee in to the file of assessing officer, therefore, penalty appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 418/RJT/2025 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, does not have any leg to stand, hence, we dismissed the same. However, the assessing officer is at liberty to initiate fresh penalty in de-novo proceedings, if any, as per the provisions of the Act.