MANOHAR SINGH THAKUR,S/O SHRI ANAR SINGH THAKUR, VILLAGE BANWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEHORE
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order passed by the AO. The appeal was filed with a delay of 246 days. The assessee's counsel submitted that the delay was due to the assessee suffering from a serious heart-related disease.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had a sufficient cause due to medical reasons. The Tribunal also held that the order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte due to non-representation by the assessee, also attributed to bad health.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's medical condition and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication considering the ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.11.2019 passed by learned ITO, Sehore [“AO”] u/s 144/147 of Income- tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 4
Manohar Singh Thakur ITA No. 323/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 246
days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the
assessee has filed a condonation-application/affidavit. Referring to contents
of above, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has been suffering from
serious heart-related disease. Ld. AR has filed a bunch of medical reports of
different hospitals/doctors to substantiate the factum of assessee’s illness.
Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the sole reason of non-compliance before CIT(A)
as well as occurrence of delay in filing present appeal was the medical
condition of assessee. Ld. AR submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence,
mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the
assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He submitted
that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ for occurrence of delay. He prayed to
condone delay. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench
without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced
by assessee in application/affidavit and the supporting medical reports
submitted before us and in view of same, 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
Page 2 of 4
Manohar Singh Thakur ITA No. 323/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
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.
On merit of case, the Ld. AR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is ex-
parte due to non-representation by assessee and the non-representation
occurred due to bad health condition of assessee. Ld. AR went ahead and
submitted that the assessment-order has also been passed by AO u/s 144
wherein an addition of Rs. 22,32,000/- has been made on account of
unexplained cash deposits in bank a/c due to non-submission of evidences
by assessee. However, the assessee has collected relevant details/
documents and is ready and willing to make a proper representation before
AO if an opportunity is given. Accordingly, Ld. AR prays that the present
matter should be remanded to the file of AO for adjudication afresh.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he would not have any objection if
the bench takes a call to remand this matter to AO. However, he makes a
request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not
seek unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above submissions of parties; 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
Page 3 of 4
Manohar Singh Thakur ITA No. 323/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an
appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also
directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may
be fixed by AO and do not seek 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 by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 21/01/2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 21/01/2026
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 4 of 4
