AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Inco me T ax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the addition made vide assessment order dated 29.03.2022 were confirmed .
During the cour se of hear ing, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of limitation. However, the assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT( A) stating that reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee in filing the belated appeal, but the ld. CIT( A) was not satisfied with the explanation given for the delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficie nt cause for condonation o f delay and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Accordingly, the appellant has taken ground No. 2 in that regard before the Tribunal as under:
“2 . That the ld. CIT(A ) err ed i n di smissing the appeal without condoni ng the delay, despi te r eas onable cause due t o medical illness and me ntal unfi tness duly explai ned by the appellant al ong with application for condonati on o f delay and doctor pres criptions.”
The ld. DR re lied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. C IT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal o f the assessee, which does no t need any interference.
We have heard the parties and perused the material availab le on reco rd. We noticed that the Hon'b le Supreme Court in the case of C ollector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation o f delay as under:
“The Legislatur e has c onferred t he power to co ndone dela y by enacti ng section 51 o f the Limitati on Act of 1963 in order to enabl e the courts to do substantial justice t o parti es by disposi ng of matters on de merits”. The expr essi on “sufficient caus e” empl oyed by t he Legisla ture is ad equately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law i n a meani ngful ma nner which subserves the ends of j usti ce t hat bei ng the life-purpose of t he existence of the i nstituti on of courts . It is co mmon kno wledge that this court has been maki ng of j ustifiably liberal appr oac h i n matters i nstituted i n t his court. B ut the message do es not appear to have perc olated down to all the other courts in the hi erarc hy.
And such a liberal approac h is adopted o n pri nciple as it is realized t hat:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant d oes not stand to bene fit by lodgi ng an appeal late.
2.Refusi ng to condo ne delay can result i n a meritori ous matt er bei ng thrown out at the ver y thr eshol d and c ause of j ustice bei ng defeat ed. As against this, whe n delay is co ndoned, the hi ghest tha t c an happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.”
In view of the above, it is w ell settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our op inion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion mad e by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In the given facts and cir cumstances and in view of the settled legal position, we are of the considered view that it was a fit case for condonation of delay because the explanation given by assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that the assessee has sought condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A) in application attributing medical reasons/ill health and being mentally unfit. Ho wever, there is no co ntrary material brought on record by the Revenue to contr adict the claim made by the assessee with regard to ill health and mental illness and being unfit to pursue the case. For these reaso ns, the impugned appellate order is set aside. Hence , we deem it expedient to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) . Since, the assessment order is also ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, therefore ends of justice requires that assessee be given an effective opportunity o f he aring for completing assessment u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. lower authorities. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after affording and effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee who shall submit the material/submissions within a period of 60 days of passing of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.