Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) with a delay of approximately 100 days, attributing the delay to a leg accident and providing a medical certificate. The Revenue objected to the delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for failure to file documents.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the medical reasons submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, giving the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the assessee for the delay.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 147, IT Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 5/JP/2024
Ashish Jain cuke The ITO Vs. Plot No. 10, Rajawat Farm House, Ward 1(3) SFS Mansarovar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFUPJ 5816L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Singh, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 20/03/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28 /03/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27-07-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising grounds of appeal at Form No. 36.
2 ASHISH JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 100 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee filed an application dated 05-01-2024 for condonation of delay narrating therein his problem.
‘’I would like to inform you that I have received order from CIT(A) Jaipur dated 27-07-2023 and the time limit for filing appeal before Hon’ble ITAT expired on 26-09-2023 against said order.
There is delay of 99 to 100 days in filing the appeal before your Honour. This delay is due to leg accident.
Therefore, you are kindly requested to please condone the delay in filing appeal before ITAT’’ It is also noted that the assessee submitted the Medical Certificate issued by Swai Man Singh Chikitsalaya, Jaipur (SMS -Govt of Rajasthan) as to his treatment (PB12-14) 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to such delay made by the assessee in filing the appeal. 2.3 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the medical records of assessee and application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. From these documents, it indicates that that there is a merit in the submission of the assessee 3 ASHISH JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR and thus in view of the submissions of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Further the Bench at the time of hearing of the appeal noted that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the narration as mentioned therein are as under:-
‘’3. The present appeal is against the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 05-12-2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal and order of the AO already available on record. The appellant has failed to file any documentary evidence before the AO to explain the impugned amount and the case was completed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act. During the appeal proceeding the appellant has neither filed any documentary to support the ground raised in the appeal nor is there any supporting evidence available on record in favour of the appellant. Since in the instant case, the appellant has not shown that the total addition of Rs.24,76,898/- by te AO was arbitrary and mala fide. I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the AO. Hence, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.’’ 3.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that the assessee has not filed any submissions and evidences relating to the case before the ld. CIT(A) and thus the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. It is 4. ASHISH JAIN VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR also noted that the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for one more chance to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) while as the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The Bench feels that one more chance may be given to the Assessee to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) and the appeal is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and the assessee will submit the necessary documents / evidences concerning the above mentioned appeal. However, for lethargic and negligent action on the part of the assessee, therefore a cost of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee and the same shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld CIT(A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.3 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.