The Rajkot Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 147-day delay in filing a tax appeal, citing the severe illness of the assessee’s wife as a valid reason and remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication, as the assessee was not given proper notice during the appellate proceedings.
Vipulbhai Shambhubhai Ramani,appellant-assessee, filed a delayed appeal for the Assessment Year 2021-22, exceeding the limit by 147 days. A petition was submitted to condone the delay.The assessee’s counsel explained that the 147-day delay was due to the severe illness of the assessee’s wife, which required his attention. It was argued that there was no mala fide intent, and the delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.
The revenue’s representative opposed the request, stating that the assessee failed to justify the delay. It was argued that despite his wife’s illness, he could have filed the appeal on time. Therefore, it was urged that the delay should not be condoned, and the appeal should be dismissed.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The two member bench comprising Dinesh Mohan Sinha (Judicial Member) and Dr.A.L.Saini (Accountant Member) heard both parties and noted that the 147-day delay occurred due to the severe illness of the assessee’s wife, which prevented him from managing his tax matters. The assessee submitted medical certificates and reports to support this claim. The stressful situation in his family further delayed his decision to file the appeal.
It was observed that while exercising discretion under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, a pragmatic approach should be taken. A distinction must be made between inordinate delays and minor ones. In cases of prolonged delay, the impact on the opposing party must be considered, whereas shorter delays may warrant a more lenient approach. The ITAT stated that no strict rule applies, and each case should be assessed on its merits to ensure substantial justice.
Since the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period, the assessee was required to provide a sufficient cause for the delay. The appellate tribunal found that the reason given—his wife’s severe illness and the resulting stress—was valid. It was held that the term “sufficient cause” should be interpreted liberally to advance justice when no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is attributed to the applicant. Reliance was placed on the decision in Bharat Auto Center v. CIT 282 ITR 366.
Read More: Lack of Proof of Notice Service: ITAT sets aside CIT(A) Order
The appellate tribunal noted that CIT(A) issued an ex-parte order as the assessee neither appeared nor submitted relevant documents due to non-service of notices during the appellate proceedings. Since the assessee challenged the order for lack of a fair opportunity, the ITAT found it appropriate to grant another chance. Accordingly, CIT(A)’s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
In short,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
