Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the delay, attributing it to not being tech-savvy, health issues (cancer), and negligence by their Chartered Accountant. The Revenue did not object to the condonation of the delay.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the principle of substantial justice and the assessee's "sufficient cause" for the delay as per Section 253(5) of the Act, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal also noted procedural deficiencies in the lower authorities' orders and found it appropriate to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the lower authorities' orders require fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
144, 250(6), 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 08.12.2018 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT-2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 7 - AY 2016-17
The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay and therefore time-barred. The assessee has filed an application/affidavit for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:
Page 2 of 7 Kamlesh Motwani - AY 2016-17 Page 3 of 7 Kamlesh Motwani - AY 2016-17
The averments made by assessee in above affidavit, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or Page 4 of 7 - AY 2016-17 material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.
It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.
Ld. AR for assessee submits that the section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. He further submits that in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside.
Ld. AR next submitted that the assessment-order passed by AO is also ex-parte u/s 144 wherein the AO has made a total addition of Rs. 2,43,18,080/- [Disallowance of cost of Rs. 1,07,21,118/- (+) Disallowance of Page 5 of 7 - AY 2016-17 exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 1,35,96,962/-, claimed by assessee in computation of taxable long-term capital gain] for lack of submissions by assessee. However, the assessee has compiled/collected all required details/ documents and is very much ready to make a proper representation before AO if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO to enable the AO to make a fresh adjudication and compute correct taxable income/tax liability of assessee.
Ld. DR for revenue agreed to the submission of Ld. AR but made a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above, having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order.
We also find that the assessee is suffering from cancer. Therefore, we are not imposing any cost upon assessee although there appears some lethargy on the part of assessee in making representation before lower authorities. However, we direct the assessee to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek
Page 6 of 7 - AY 2016-17 unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 19/02/2026