Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order for AY 2015-16. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 16-day delay in filing, despite the assessee citing illness and hospitalization as the reason. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, requesting condonation of delay and restoration of the matter to the CIT(A).
Held
The ITAT condoned the 16-day delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations and finding the assessee's reasons for delay convincing. The tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present evidence and submissions.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a 16-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) and whether the CIT(A) had passed an order as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश /ORDER PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Pune [Ld. CIT(A)], dated 30.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2017.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 16 days, despite of sufficient cause being explained before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assesse stated that he was sick and therefore, he could not sign the appeal memo on time, as he was admitted in hospital for some time, therefore, the minor delay of 16 days before the Ld. CIT(A) has resulted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the 2015-16 Laxmanbhai Premjibhai Savani interests of justice, minor delay may be condoned, and the appeal of the assessee may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has made compliance before the AO, therefore, instead of remitting the issue back to the file of AO, the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee to condone the delay before ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We are of the view that provisions of law have to be adhered strictly and that one cannot be allowed to act in leisure and make a mockery of enacted law, because law & provisions are laid down to benefit both sides of litigation. Be that as it may, we have to do justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 167 ITR 471, (1988 SC 897) (7) observes .... “4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay.” When we weigh these two aspects then the side of justice becomes heavier and casts a duty on us to deliver justice. We note that the reasons explained by the assessee for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A). Having heard both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A).
On merit, we note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We also note that assessee did not submit entire documents and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Ld. CIT(A). We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the Page 2 of 3 interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidence as deemed relevant before the Ld. CIT(A) at the time of appellate proceedings in consequence to this order and the Ld. CIT(A) shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.