ROHTASH SINGLA JIMMI,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD 1, BARNALA

At the outset, there is a delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for late filing. In the affidavit, the assessee has stated that he is a physically handicapped person suffering from hearing and speech disability since birth and is entirely dependent upon others for handling his income tax matters. It has further been explained that his earlier accountant, who was looking after the tax affairs, left the job and did not inform the assessee regarding the appellate proceedings and, because of his disability, the assessee could not monitor the proceedings and came to know about the appellate order only later when he consulted another person after receipt of subsequent penalty related communication. It has also been submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred 2 due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and immediately after gaining knowledge, the appeal was filed without further delay. The Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the condonation application but left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. The reasons stated therein show that the assessee is a differently-abled person and was dependent upon his accountant for compliance of tax matters and, due to the accountant leaving the job and non-communication of proceedings, the assessee could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. These facts constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within limitation. It is a settled legal position that the expression “sufficient cause” under the limitation provisions should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice and not to defeat it on technical grounds, particularly when no mala-fide intention or deliberate negligence is found. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. That order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the law and the facts of the case, Commissioner (Appeals) erred in passing ex-parte order without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.