V Y INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

This stand was furthered by the High Court in the following 10. Judgements- ……………… ……………… 11. Following the above explained rationale, the appeal stands dismissed.”

This appeal is filed with delay of 397 days. At the outset, Shri Tanmay Jain, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee drew our attention to three affidavits dated 13.08.2025 (same date in every affidavit) of (i) Dr. Purnendu Saxena, Promoter Director of the appellant assessee; (ii) Dr. Vishnu Gupta, Promoter Director of the appellant assessee and (iii) Shri Vikas K. Jain, CA, the tax advisor of the assessee upto first appellate authority. The Ld. AR submitted that these affidavits showed that the assessee’s tax advisor Shri Vikas K. Jian had failed to keep proper & timely follow-up of the appellate proceedings and to 3 V Y Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur suggest consequential actions thereafter to the appellant assessee. Due to such failure on the part of the assessee’s tax advisor Shri Vikas K. Jian, there was not only non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) but also failed to file appeal before the Tribunal within prescribed time limit, the Ld. AR submitted. The Ld. AR prayed for condonation of the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. To which, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection. Accordingly, we are deciding the delay condonation petition on the merit.

There is no dispute that under section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. In case of HL Malhotra & Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-12, New Delhi (ITA No. 211/2020 & CM Appeals 32045-32047/2020 dated 22nd December, 2020), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that in absence of anything malafide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the Court should normally condone the delay as the intent is always to promote substantial justice following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 and N. Balakrishnan Vs M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (7) SCC 123.

The justification for filing this appeal after the prescribed time limit therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘Sufficient Cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable Courts to apply the law 4 V Y Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that 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. Another principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, the appellant runs a serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of this appeal as it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing this appeal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred.

From a plain reading of all three affidavits and on our specific query from the Ld. Sr. DR, who did not raise any objection for condonation of delay, we, therefore, do not see any prejudice which will be caused to the Revenue in deciding this appeal on merit. In light of aforesaid discussions, in exercise of powers under section 254 of the Act, we therefore, hereby condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, delay is condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

Now, after condonation of delay by us, we will decide this appeal on merit.

The Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution. He contended that the Ld. CIT(A) had no power to dismiss appeal in limine. The Act had empowered the CIT(A) to decide the case with speaking order. He therefore, prayed for remanding the case back to the Ld. CIT(A).

Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below; Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the appeal and upholding impugned order. On our specific query, she reluctantly admitted for remanding the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal due to non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.).

We take note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case ex- parte and not on the merit. Considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of justice, we are not offering any comment on merit of the case. After thoughtful consideration, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to 7 V Y Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur the assessee. We therefore, order accordingly. The appellant assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings.

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.