CHANDUMAL THARWANI,BETUL vs. DCIT ITARSI, ITARSI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 29.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.12.2019 passed by learned DCIT/ACIT, Itarsi [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal.
The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 67 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed following application for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons of delay:
Page 1 of 5
Chandumal Tharwani, Betul ITA No. 3/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18
Page 2 of 5
Chandumal Tharwani, Betul ITA No. 3/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18
Page 3 of 5
Chandumal Tharwani, Betul ITA No. 3/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18
The reasons submitted by assessee in above application are explained
by Ld. AR in open court. After deliberation, it is found that the various
difficulties narrated by assessee in Para No. 2 to 4 of application adequately
demonstrate a ‘sufficient cause’ for occurrence of delay. Finding strength
therein, Ld. DR for revenue did not show any objection against condonation
of delay. 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 must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented
approach. Thus, taking into account 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.
Ld. AR drew us to the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and showed
that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte qua assessee due to non-prosecution by
assessee. Ld. AR submitted that the reason of non-prosecution of first
appeal by assessee is also same as narrated in condonation application.
Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent his case
before the lower authorities. Ld. DR for revenue proposed that the case of
assessee should be restored to AO because the AO has also passed ex-parte
assessment-order due to non-reply by assessee to show cause notice. Ld. AR
Page 4 of 5
Chandumal Tharwani, Betul ITA No. 3/Ind/2024 - A.Y. 2017-18
agreed to the proposal of Ld. DR. In view of consensus by both sides and
also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure
participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 29.05.2024.
Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक /Dated : 29.05.2024. CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 5 of 5
