Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) on 06.12.2023, which was barred by limitation by 66 days from the intimation order dated 01.09.2023. The assessee's initial explanation for the delay ('Trustee was ill') was not accepted by the CIT(A) due to lack of day-to-day explanation and documentary evidence. Subsequently, before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted an affidavit from the Managing Trustee, Mr. Shaukat Ali Ghori, explaining his poor health and providing medical reports indicating Type 1 Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction (LVDD).
Held
The Tribunal found that the explanation regarding the trustee's ill health, supported by medical evidence, constituted a 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was deemed unintentional and beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Considering that the merits of the case had not been adjudicated by the CIT(A), the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present further evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned based on medical evidence of the trustee's ill health. If the delay is condoned, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 143(1), Section 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Ms. Madhumita Roy, & Smt. Renu Jauhri
O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, (JM) : The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT (A)- Chandigarh (‘CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the AO under Section 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23.
The brief facts leading to the case are that the appeal has been filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority on 06.12.2023 against the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 01.09.2023, which is barred by limitation for 66 days. The reason for such delay has been mentioned before the First Appellate Authority by the assessee, which is reflecting in Form 35 as ‘the Trustee was ill’. Such explanation rendered by the assessee was not found acceptable in the absence of day to day explanation for delay. Moreso, no documentary evidence was filed in support of such plea taken by the assessee. Hence, the delay was not condoned.
Being aggrieved by, and / or dissatisfied with, the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the instant appeal is preferred before us by the assessee. At the time of hearing of the matter, the ld. counsel appearing for the assessee has drawn our attention to an affidavit affirmed by one Mr. Shaukat Ali Ghori, the Managing Trustee of Mohammedi Baitulmal, the assessee before us, explaining the reason for such delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It has been pleaded that Mr. Ghori during that material point of time when the appeal was supposed to be filed was not keeping good health and therefore, not been able to take proper steps to file the appeal in time. Such delay was, thus, unintentional and the reason was totally beyond control of the assessee. Further that as the matter on merit requires to be decided, the delay should be condoned by taking a pragmatic view in the matter as contended by him. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has drawn attention to the documents submitted before us in support of poor health condition of the deponent of such affidavit wherefrom it appears that Mr. Ghori was initially treated by the medical practitioner on 14.10.2023, which continued for long. The medical examination reports including the echocardiography report filed by the assessee reveals that Mr. Ghori was suffering from Type 1 Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction (LVDD) which suggests the plea taken by the assessee was genuine. In view of this particular aspect of the matter, the Ld. AR prays for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). ‘Sufficient cause’ since has been able to be demonstrated by the Ld. AR, it has been prayed for setting aside the issue for adjudication on merit to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) upon condonation of delay by us. Such prayer made by the Ld. AR has not been objected by the Ld. DR with all his fairness.
Having heard the ld. counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidences in support of the delay including the medical examination reports of Mr. Ghori, we find sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, for late filing of appeal. The same is found to be unintentional. We, therefore, condone the delay. So far as the merit is concerned, we find the assessee be given a further opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A) as the same has not been adjudicated upon.
We, therefore, with the aforesaid observation remitting the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the same afresh upon providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. The Ld. CIT(A) is further requested to pass a reasoned order.
In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee, is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes.