INCOME TAX: Where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 58 days and submitted that delay in filing appeal belatedly was not as a result of any negligence or lack of diligence but solely due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances surrounding his health and he attached doctors’ certificate in support of his petition, delay was to be condoned
INCOME TAX: Where assessee failed to respond to notices for prosecution of his appeal with evidences and hence appeal was dismissed ex parte by Commissioner (Appeals), keeping in view principles of natural justice, matter was to be remanded back to file of Commissioner (Appeals) and he was to be directed to afford assessee another opportunity of being heard
[2024] 160 taxmann.com 1252 (Visakhapatnam – Trib.)
IN THE ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad
v.
Income-tax Officer*
DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT APPEAL NO. 280 (VIZ.) OF 2023
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16]
JANUARY 31, 2024
Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Appellate Tribunal – Powers of Condonation of delay – Assessment year 2015-16 – Assessee filed appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) with delay of 58 days – Assessee submitted that delay in filing appeal belatedly was not as a result of any negligence or lack of diligence but solely due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances surrounding his health as he slipped and fell down on steps in his relatives house while attending a function fracturing his left ankle – He attached doctor’s certificate in support of his petition pleaded to condone delay and admit appeal for hearing – Whether there was reasonable cause for filing appeal belatedly – Held, yes – Whether therefore, delay of 58 days in filing appeal was to be condoned in interest of justice and appeal was to be admitted for hearing – Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]
Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure of (Ex parte order) – Assessment year 2015-16 – Assessee an individual had not filed return of income for relevant assessment year – It was noticed by department that assessee had made cash deposits in his bank account which was treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 – Accordingly, Assessing Officer passed assessment order – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld order of Assessing Officer ex parte as assessee did not appear before him – Assessee contended before Tribunal that he was not given sufficient opportunity before Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, pleaded for another opportunity of being heard before Commissioner (Appeals) to substantiate his case keeping in view principles of natural justice – Whether keeping in view principles of natural justice, matter was to be remitted back to file of Commissioner (Appeals) and he was to be directed to afford assessee another opportunity of being heard – Held, yes [Para 8] [Matter remanded]
The High Court’s decision to condone delays in appeal filings due to unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances underscores a compassionate and pragmatic approach to justice. This ruling acknowledges the unpredictability of life and the fact that legal processes should accommodate genuine instances where parties are unable to meet strict deadlines through no fault of their own. It reflects a balance between the need for procedural discipline and the recognition of human vulnerability. By allowing for such discretion, the court enhances fairness and ensures that justice is not denied due to rigid adherence to timelines. This judgment is a reminder that the law, at its core, serves the interests of justice and the well-being of individuals – JSPCO
