Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal filed by the assessee pertains to Assessment Year 2008-09 and is directed against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which arose from a penalty order. The appeal was filed 55 days late due to the assessee's severe chest pain and medical treatment.
Held
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal were convincing and constituted a reasonable cause. The delay was not deliberate or intentional but due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 55 days and admitted the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits; whether the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s order were passed erroneously.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 253(3), 253(5), 147, 144
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
िनधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज�व क� ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR) सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Order (AY) 2008-09, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”, dated 10.02.2025, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 22.08.2016.
“1.The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty 8,40,37,155/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without condoning the delay in filing the appeal.”
The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 55 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) and 253(5) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee was suffered severe chest pain and was badly engaged for his medical treatment. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the medical report for perusal of the Bench. The Ld. Counsel stated that delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The Ld. Counsel requested that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and appeal may be decided on merit.
On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that Bench may decide the matter of condonation of delay, as it thinks fit.
We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee had undergone medical treatment and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal in time. We note that the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Considering all these facts, we find that delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but it was due to medical treatment of assessee. The Ld. Sr-DR has also not raised
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 and Ld. CIT(A) passed appellate order in ex parte proceedings. The Ld. Counsel submitted that now assessee is ready with the documents and details and wants to furnish the details and documents before lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel therefore prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before Ld. CIT(A) as the quantum appeal of assessee has already been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue has raised no objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities.
We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised
by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Ld. CIT(A) if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. Besides, the quantum appeal of the assessee in for A.Y. 2008-09, had been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefor this penalty appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2008- 09, should also be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr-DR has also no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). In A.Y.2008
09. Damjibhai Lekhrajbhai Thavrani view of the above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is needless to say that assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences, as deemed relevant before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of appellate proceedings, in consequence to this order and the Ld. CIT(A) 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. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 29/08/2025 in the Open Court.