KHIMJI HARIDAS MODI KAUTUMBIK TRUST,STATION ROAD vs. ITO EXEMPTION WD 2 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that both the appellate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), online, show date of passing of the orders, as on 06- 12-2021. Hence, the due date of filing of these appeals, against the CIT (A)`s orders, is on or before 05-02-2022. However, these two appeals are filed late by 1066 days on 29-01-2025, before this Tribunal, due to continuous ill health of main trustee, (assessee). The main trustee is a senior citizen, who believed that his tax consultant, Shri Girishbhai Parikh had fled the appeal on time. However, the tax consultant, Shri Girishbhai Parikh, diagnosed with lung cancer, on dated 07.09.2020 (assessee submitted medical reports before the Bench). The tax consultant, Shri Girishbhai Parikh, after having suffered for a long period with lung cancer, has ultimately died on 24.08.2022. (death certificate submitted before the Bench). The main trustee, who is also a senior citizen, was feeling normal illness due to age factor and he used to depend only on his tax consultant, Shri Girishbhai Parikh, who, after having suffered for a long period with lung cancer, has ultimately died on 24.08.2022. Due to the unfortunate events, there was tension environment in the family. Therefore, such delay of 1066 days have occurred in filing these two appeals, which may be condoned in the interest of justice.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submitted that if the delay pertains to pandemic period, Covid-19, then it should be condoned, as per the -80/Rjt/2025 A.Ys. 18-19 & 1-20 Khimji Haridas Modi Kautumbik Trust direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. No.665/2021 and MA No29/2022. The Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue submitted that it was the responsibility of assessee to file appeal on time, and the tax consultant of the assessee, who has died because of lung cancer is not responsible. The assessee-trust could have appointed another tax consultant, if its previous tax consultant was suffering from lung cancer. The assessee, himself, was not filing any illness, hence, in the peculiar circumstances, assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, therefore delay should not be condoned.

I have heard both the parties on the preliminary issue. I find that condonation prayer for delay in filing of the appeals were also made by both the assessees in Appeal Memo itself in statement of facts mentioned in Item No. 11 of the Appeal Memo-Form No.36. Copy of Medical Certificate of Illness of Late Shri Girishbhai Parikh, and his death certificate and his authority letter has submitted by assessee before the Bench. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed to condone delay in filing of the appeals and give one more opportunity to contest case before Assessing Officer by furnishing documents and evidences to prove its claim. I find that Late Shri Girishbhai Parikh, tax consultant was seriously ill and subsequently died and due to this reason, the delay was occurred. The assessee submitted before me a chart of important events, which is reproduced below:

I note that there is a statutory limit prescribed for filing of appeal in the Act. The invocation of the power to condone any delay, major or minor, in observing such time limit is possible only on the satisfaction of the authorities, regarding the appellant having been unable to file the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. The appellant cannot be entitled to automatic admission of appeal filed after the time limit. However, I find that in the instant case the assessee has explained the sufficient cause and reason to condone the delay. I am of the considered view that assessee has explained sufficient cause and therefore delay needs to be condoned. Hence, I condone the delay of both the appeals of assessees and admit both the appeals for hearing.

On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent its case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. 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.

The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

I have heard both the parties and noted that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the rectification order was carried out u/s 154 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.