NAGEENA BI,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 1(1), , BHOPAL

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.03.2015 passed by learned ITO- 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 read with section 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act,

The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 40 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Ld. AR drew our attention to the condonation- application/affidavit and submitted that the assessee is a housewife and she is an illiterate lady; she is lacking knowledge of the provisions of law as well technological systems. Ld. AR submitted that because of her illiteracy, the assessee could not make any representation before lower-authorities which has led to passing of ex-parte orders by both of the lower-authorities. Ld. AR submitted that the delay of 40 days in filing appeal has occurred solely due to illiteracy but otherwise there is no deliberate 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 prayed with utmost humbleness that looking to the position of assessee, the small delay of 40 days be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench while showing no objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, 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 Nageena Bi, Bhopal vs. ITO,1(1), Bhopal 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.

During hearing, learned Representatives of both sides are ad idem and agree that for an apt and proper adjudication of the case of assessee, this matter should go back to the file of AO. Ld. DR, however, requests that a clear direction be given to assessee to represent her case adequately before AO. In view of this 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 her case before AO for a proper adjudication.

Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.