Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15 was against an order passed by the CIT(A) under section 250, which arose from an assessment order under section 143(3). The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal was filed with a delay of 79 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal, finding that the reasons provided by the assessee (medical treatment of parents) constituted a reasonable cause. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits as per the provisions of section 250(6) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the CIT(A) order was passed without deciding the issues on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 253(3), 253(5), 10(10D), 250(6)
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
आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member:
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A)-8, Delhi (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”,dated 31.01.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.11.2016.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by not giving reasonable opportunity of being herd to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by passed order against assessee u/s 250 for failure to comply with the show cause notice even without considering the assessee point of view.
3. Assessee has fully cooperated with the assessing Officer for the completion of assessment and provided the complete details in short time, without any delay or default for hearing, default may be condoned and penalty to be deleted.
4. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an order against the assessee on the grounds that sufficient opportunity of being heard was provided. However, appellant not aware of any communication from department under the unforeseen circumstances of AR. Therefore, the appellant respectfully requests that this order be set aside and the case be remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for reconsideration. Furthermore, the additions made by the AO are not justified, as the appellant possesses substantial evidences demonstrating that the income in question was neither concealed nor undisclosed. Specifically, the amount received from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) is exempt under Section10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, and the proceeds from the sale of a residential property were appropriately offered for taxation as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
5. The assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is bad-in- law.”
This appeal filed by the assessee, before the Tribunal, is barred by limitation by 79 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 badly engaged for medical treatment of his parents who were aged old. The Ld. Counsel stated that assessee was in mental stress due to ailment of his parents, therefore, the delay has occurred, which was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond his control. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, 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, opposed the prayer of the assessee, for condonation of delay, and stated that delay should not be condoned.
We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. In the affidavit, it is submitted that assessee was engaged in medical treatment of his parents and as a result, the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal. We note that 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 was not deliberate and intentional, but it was due to medical attention of assessee’s parents who were age old. However, Ld. Sr-DR has raised objection and stated that delay should not be condoned.
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. We, accordingly, condone the delay.
At the outset, on merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the advocate appointed by assessee did not co-operate in the proceedings before Assessing Officer, as well as in appellate proceedings before Ld.CIT(A), therefore, learned CIT(A) had passed the ex-perty order, as no any documents were furnished by the advocate appointed by the assessee before ld CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that now the assessee is ready with the documents and details and wants to furnish the details and documents before lower authorities. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be given to assessee to plead his case before Assessing Officer.
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 Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Assessing Officer, if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. The Ld. Sr-DR has also no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In 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 Assessing Officer 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 Assessing Officer at the time of de novo 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. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
10.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced on 18/08/2025 in the Open Court.