SRI SAI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

At the outset, it is brought to our notice that the learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him stating that there was no sufficient good reason to condone the delay. On a perusal of record, we find that the assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that due to the health reasons of this Finance Manager, Shri Satish and he was passing through most critical circumstances of his life, it could not prefer the appeal within time though they are conscious of the fact of the importance of complying with the law. On a perusal of the impugned order, we further find that though the learned CIT(A) stressed the need of assessee establishing the sufficient and good reason for condoning the delay, he did not deal with the factual aspect involved in this matter satisfactorily and nowhere did he say with cogent reasons, that the reason pleaded by the assessee does no constitute sufficient or good reason to condone the delay.

On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered that since the sufficiency of reason pleaded by the party varies from case to case, a finding has to be recorded as to the insufficiency of such reason before refusing to condone the delay. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee does not stand to gain by filing the appeal with delay and running the risk of being denied the chance of diligently conducting their case on merits. In these circumstances pleaded by the assessee, we do not find the delay of 102 days an inordinate delay or that a case could be thrown out at the threshold without testing the merits thereof. Above all, in this set of circumstances, the highest that would happen by condoning the delay is that the merits of the case could be tested according to law. It

With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order by condoning the delay and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits according to law, after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Needless to say that the assessee shall co-operate in the first appellate proceedings for disposal thereof on merits. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of April, 2024.