The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay of 460 days in filing an appeal by an 87-year-old taxpayer, holding that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations where sufficient cause for the delay is demonstrated.
The bench of Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Jagadish (Accountant Member) has subsequently set aside the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.
The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2017-18 and arose from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated June 11, 2024. Before examining the merits of the case, the Tribunal considered the taxpayer’s application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
The taxpayer, aged about 87 years, had been suffering from multiple age-related ailments and was under medical treatment. It was explained that the health issues significantly affected his ability to attend to tax matters and communications.
The taxpayer also stated that he was not conversant with electronic communications, did not possess his own email address, and was dependent upon his Chartered Accountant for handling income-tax compliances. A medical certificate was also produced confirming that he had been under treatment since May 2024 and had been advised rest for a substantial period.
The Tribunal noted that the department had not brought any material on record to controvert the assertions made in the affidavit. Taking into account the taxpayer’s advanced age, medical condition, supporting medical evidence, and the absence of any indication of mala fide intent, the Bench concluded that sufficient cause existed for the delay in filing the appeal.
While deciding the condonation issue, the Tribunal relied upon several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
The Bench reiterated that courts should adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach in matters of delay and that refusal to condone delay may result in meritorious matters being dismissed without examination on merits.
The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should take precedence over procedural technicalities, particularly when the delay is neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence.
On the substantive appeal, the taxpayer argued that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order ex parte without adequately appreciating the facts and evidence available on record. It was submitted that due to the circumstances explained in the condonation petition, the taxpayer could not effectively present his case before the first appellate authority. The taxpayer expressed willingness to furnish all relevant documents and explanations if another opportunity was granted.
After examining the record, the Tribunal observed that the appellate order had indeed been passed ex parte.
The Bench held that the principles of natural justice require that an assessee be afforded an effective opportunity to present his case and place all relevant materials before the appellate authority. Since the taxpayer was prepared to substantiate his claims with supporting evidence, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority with directions to adjudicate the issues afresh on merits after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer. The Tribunal also directed the taxpayer to fully cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all requisite details and evidence as may be required. It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions or disallowances involved and left all issues open for reconsideration.
In the result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
