TRIDNET MERCANTILE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

At the outset, it was noticed that the CIT(A) has not considered the issues raised by the assessee on merits, but has dismissed the appeal in-limine refusing to condone the delay of seven days in filing the appeal before him. Though the relevant discussion in the order of the CIT(A) is cryptic, but it is noticeable that the Director of the assessee company had submitted that due to his illness for 15 days, he could not attend the office and, therefore, there was a delay of seven days in filing of the appeal. The CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay on the ground that no evidence has been produced in support of the claim of illness during the period furnished.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in the course of hearing before the CIT(A) assessee had furnished a Paper Book containing detailed submissions and other evidences on the merits of the various issues raised by the assessee in its appeal. So, however, there is no discussion with regard to the same and the appeal has been dismissed by refusing to condone the delay. The Ld. Representative for the assessee asserted that no discussion took place with regard to the delay in filing of the appeal before CIT(A) and, therefore, except the letter seeking condonation of delay which was on record, the supporting medical certificate could not be submitted. It was contended that the assessee would be satisfied if the matter is remanded back to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Ld. Departmental Representative has not seriously opposed the plea of the assessee, but defended the order of the CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay in the absence of any evidence to support the claim of illness.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned order of the CIT(A). While the CIT(A) is not entirely incorrect in refusing to condone the delay in the absence of evidence in support of the claim of illness, but there is no material to suggest that the CIT(A) had put the assessee to any notice in this regard. Pertinently, the CIT(A) was dealing with a delay of seven days, which is quite small and the principles of natural justice and fair play obliged him to atleast put the assessee on notice to substantiate the claim of illness. However, such an approach is quite conspicuous by its absence by the impugned order of CIT(A). Before me, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has referred to certificate issued by the Medical Practitioner supporting assessee’s claim of illness during this period. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to condone the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file to be adjudicated denovo in accordance with law. Needless to mention, the CIT(A) shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter, pass an order afresh as per law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, as above.