YASHBIR MALIK,SONIPAT vs. ITO,WARD-4, SONIPAT

PDF

ITA 2728/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 January 2024AY 2013-14Bench: us, indicating some mental health issues of the assessee, we consider it an appropriate case to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits.3. Next, an additional evidence application was filed under Rule 29 and it was submitted by learned AR that due to some mental health issues of the assessee the additional evidence could not be filed before learned CIT(A).3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee appealed against a CIT(A) order for AY 2013-14, which arose from an assessment under section 143(3). There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, for which condonation was sought, citing COVID-19 restrictions, subsequent medical conditions including severe depressive episode with suicide risk, and the assessee being physically handicapped. An application for additional evidence was also filed.

Held

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's mental health issues. It admitted the additional evidence but, requiring factual verification, restored the issue on merits to the learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to take the additional evidence on record and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

Key Issues

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to medical conditions and COVID-19; Admissibility of additional evidence and restoration of the case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

Sections Cited

143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961, Rule 29

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT( DR)

Hearing: 21.12.2023Pronounced: 24.01.2024

The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 15.11.2019, for the assessment year 2013-14, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (hereinafter referred as “learned First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”), in appeal no. 387/2016-17, arising out of assessment order dated

23.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the ITO, Ward-5, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”).

At the outset it was pointed out by the learned AR that there is a delay in filing of the appeal for which an application for condonation of delay is filed. On hearing upon the application for condonation of delay, it comes up that the impugned order of learned CIT(A) was passed on 15.11.2019, which was received by the assessee on 31.12.2019 and the appeal should have been filed by 30.03.2020. However, there were Covid-19 pandemic restrictions imposed by the Government and the assessee claims that subsequently, assessee had suffered medical conditions for which he was under treatment. Learned AR has also pointed out that assessee is physically handicapped person. Medical prescription of Neuropsychiatry is relied, wherein assessee is shown to be having severe depressive episode with suicide risk. Ld. DR has however, opposed the application.

2.1 In the light of facts before us, indicating some mental health issues of the assessee, we consider it an appropriate case to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits.

Next, an additional evidence application was filed under Rule 29 and it was submitted by learned AR that due to some mental health issues of the assessee the additional evidence could not be filed before learned CIT(A).