Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) for Assessment Years 2016-17, 2018-19, and 2020-21, which had been dismissed due to delay in filing. The assessee, who was unrepresented, submitted an adjournment application stating they were in jail and unable to provide the necessary documents for the case.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's incarceration was a valid reason for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A). Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the file of the JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) should be condoned when the assessee was in jail and unable to pursue the case.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by None, Adjournment application filed. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Jaipur dated 17/12/2023, 12/12/2023 and 17/11/2023 for the A.Y. 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2020-21 respectively.
None represented on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment application has been filed mentioning that the assessee-petitioner is in jail and will not be able to provide the respective papers concerned to the case. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, ld. Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue. As the issues in the appeal are very simple and not complicated, the same are being disposed off after rejecting the adjournment application filed on behalf of the assessee. to 279/Ran/2024 Arun Kumar Singh Vs DCIT 3. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative that the ld. CIT(A)/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. It is a submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A)/JCIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the ld. CIT(A)/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal because the appeal has been filed beyond the due date for filing of the appeal. Adjournment application itself shows that the assessee is in jail. Obviously, on account of the other legal complications in the assessee's case, the delay could have happened in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/JCIT(A). This being so, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeals before the ld. CIT(A)/JCIT(A) stands condoned and the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of ld. JCIT(A)/CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.