MANOJ SAVJIBHAI SAVLIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 155 days due to severe illness and medical emergency. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits. The assessee also failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to illness, resulting in an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The words 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. The Revenue did not object to the condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and ought to be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merit.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 5 of Limitation Act
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
आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण,राजकोट�यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.860/RJT/2024 �नधा�रणवष�/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Manoj Savjibhai Savliya ITO, Ward-2(1)(1) बनाम At. Rajpara, PO Satodad Rajkot. Tal. Jam Kandorna Vs. Dist. Rajkot. PAN : BXFPS9602D (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��यथ�/Respondent) �नधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Raj Shekhar, ld.DR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
सुनवाईक�तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28 /02/2025 ORDER PERDR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2014-15 is directed against separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC’], under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 06.09.2024,which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961, vide order dated 23.3.2022.
Shri Manoj Savjibhai Savliya ITA No.860/RJT/2024 (AY :2014-15) 2 2.At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, stated that there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) by 155 days, which the ld.CIT(A) did not condone, despite of sufficient cause explained by the assessee, before the ld. CIT(A).The assessee’s appeal was dismissed on account of delay, by ld. CIT(A). The ld Counsel also argued that before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee could not appear, due to severe illness, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has passed the ex- parte order, without adjudicating the assessee`s appeal, on merit.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the filing of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee was suffering from severe illness and therefore, the delay of 155 days was occurred, and for that the assessee has submitted medical certificate and medical documents, before the Bench. Therefore, the ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has explained sufficient cause, for the delay, therefore, the delay may be condoned. Besides, some fresh documents and evidences are to be submitted before the assessing officer, therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection, if the delay is condoned, and the matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
We have heard arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that due to medical emergency and kidney problem, the assessee could file the appeal, on time, before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 155 days and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate various issues raised before him, on merit. We find that the assessee has explained sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal by 155 days, stating that at the
Shri Manoj Savjibhai Savliya ITA No.860/RJT/2024 (AY :2014-15) 3 relevant point of time, there was medical emergency and kidney failure therefore, the assessee could not get time to file the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), on time. The words "sufficient cause", as appearing in Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the, delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. 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. We have gone through reasons of delay before the ld CIT(A). A perusal of the delay petition gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A).
6.Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), and we find that assessee has to submit fresh documents and evidences, before the assessing officer,therefore, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2025
Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR.ARJUNLAL SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 28/02/2025
