Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 418 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a severe neurological disease and hospitalization. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the reasons for delay.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided plausible and sufficient reasons for the delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing, and the matter was restored to the AO for readjudication on merits after providing an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.01.2025, for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by 418 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit stating therein the assessee was seriously suffering from severe neurological disease, for which he admitted in the hospital and treatment was going on for a long period. It was also the submission that during the treatment period, he could not move. Subsequently, when he came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), he contacted the counsel telephonically for filing the appeal. However it was delayed for 418 days. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that the delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be admitted for hearing. Considering the submission of the assessee, we found that the assessee has provided sufficient reasons for delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld AR that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee in delay clause of Form 35 has provided the reasons for delay, which has also not considered by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the delay may be condoned and one more opportunity may kindly be provided so that the assessee would be able to substantiate its claim before the AO.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and ld.AO. It was the submission that the assessee was unable to explain the huge delay before the ld. Addl./JCIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. As the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was on account of negligence of my tax consultant. It was also the submission of the ld. AR that the assessee has no malafide intention in regard to delay. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld. CIT(A) the ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order on merits. Even the assessee had not cooperated in the assessment proceedings, however, the ld. AR before us requested for an opportunity to represent its case before the ld.AO. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the prayer of the ld. AR, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.AO for readjudication on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the readjudication proceeding before the ld. AO, positively.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 16/07/2025.