NEETHIVANAN JEYASUDHA,CHENNAI vs. ADDL JCIT (A), JODHPUR

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and has e-filed the return income for assessment year (‘AY’ in short) 2021-22 on 29.12.2021 declaring an income of Rs.19,05,420/- under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Thereafter, the case was processed u/s 143(1) on 28.12.2022 of the Act.

As against the intimation u/s 143(1) dated 28.12.2022, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 7 months.

As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned by the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) of the Act if he satisfies that the appellant on sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. The assessee represented before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed reply dated 01.12.2023 stating reasons for the delay to the deficiency letter dated 24.11.2023 issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee’s reply dated 01.12.2023 is as under: "I am NeethivananJeyasudha holding PAN APLPJ5195D. The Department has passed an order u/s 143(1) on 28-12-2022 for the assessment year 2021-22, without giving what items has been disallowed and added to income, raised a demand order, so filed a grievance (Grievance Acknowledgement Number 10601076) 19-01- 2023 for asking for basis of disallowance and items disallowed by department, got response to same on 17-04-2023 stating that I should have received a mail and check spam mail and apply for online rectification if resolution was not satisfying where I have not received any such mail intimation via mail or even in spam mails, so applied for online rectification on 10-05-2023, got same response for rectification order dated 05-06-2023. I have applied for appeal on 28-08-2023, on original section 143(1) dated 28-12-2022, since the rectification order was same as the original order, I kindly request you to condone the delay of filing the appeal as my health condition got was not well from June 23 to Aug 23 and do the needful at the earliest."

We have gone through the appeal paper filed and find that the said approach of the CIT(A) is neither reasonable nor adopted liberal approach. In our view, the CIT(A) ought have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merit.

How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explaine by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- [167 ITR 471 (SC) @ Pg. 472] as under:- " The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on the merits". The expression "sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that the court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 1. "Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 2. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.

There is no doubt that if the Assessee demonstrates that the delay in filing appeal was due to valid mitigating circumstances such as medical condition then the appellate authority can condone delay and consider appeal on its merits. In a similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner Office of the CGST & Central Excise, Chennai [Writ Petition 1324 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024] allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal on merits.

We have pursued the application/submission dated 01.12.2023, wherein medical reason has been given. Ld. CIT(A) clearly missed to look into the medical ground for considering delay. Therefore, Assessee demonstrates before us that the delay in filing appeal was due to valid mitigating circumstances such as medical condition of the assessee. Hence, we treat such reason as cogent and sufficient cause which cannot be termed as dilatory or frivolous.

In the light of the above discussions, considering to adopt pragmatic approach and with an intention to render substantial justice, we find that, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee hence we condone the delay. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad) and M/s Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner Office of the CGST & Central Excise, Chennai [Writ Petition 1324 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.