Loading judgment…
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).
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 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 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