2020 (8) TMI 469 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay in filing of appeal - HELD THAT - As per the interpretation of the various courts, certain reasons would come under the definition of reasonable cause like illhealth of the concerned persons, who is aggrieved or his counsel is one of the reasons for condone, the delay in filing appeal. Further, the legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing off matters on merits. At the same time, the courts has also held that every days of delays must be explained by the person. In this legal back ground, if you examine the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee has given reasons for not filing appeal within the time allowed under the Act, as per which the father of the assessee, Shri Mohanlal M.Shah, aged 65 years, who look after the tax matters of the assessee was admitted to hospital from 26/12/2018 to 29/12/2018 for spinal problem due to which, he could not attend the case for filing appeal before the Tribunal. However, immediately after recovery from his illness, he has filed appeal, which resulted in delay of 68 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. If you go through, the reasons given by the assessee along with necessary supporting evidences filed to justify the reasons given for such delay, we find that the reasons given by the assessee for not filing appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under the ambit of reasonable cause, as provided under the Act and as interpreted by the various courts. There is a reasonable cause for not filing appeal within the time allowed under the Act, which is sufficient to condone the delay in filing of appeal. We, further noted case of Collector of land acquisition vs Mst.Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has very categorically held that when, substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other aside cannot claim to have a vested right injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. We are of the considered view that this is a fit case for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and hence, we condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without hearing the assessee.
3. Disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer.
4. Disallowance of depreciation and financial expenses.
5. Jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in passing the order.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal addressed a delay of 68 days in filing before the Tribunal. The assessee cited ill health of the father, who managed financial matters, as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal considered the reasons provided and relevant legal interpretations. It concluded that the delay was due to a reasonable cause beyond the assessee's control. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.

Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(A):
Although the CIT(A) discussed the issues on merits, the appeal was dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance. The Tribunal emphasized the obligation of the appellant to present their case and the authority's duty to decide on merits even in the absence of the assessee. It held that the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present arguments. The Tribunal instructed the assessee to submit necessary evidence without seeking adjournments.

Disallowance of Expenses:
The appeal challenged the disallowance of specific expenses by the Assessing Officer, including car insurance, petrol, depreciation on assets, and financial expenses. The CIT(A) upheld some of these disallowances. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s decision-making process and remanded the issue back for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper justification for the disallowances.

Jurisdiction of CIT(A):
The Tribunal also addressed the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) in passing the order. It highlighted the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case and receive a decision based on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for due process and instructed the CIT(A) to re-examine the case in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of fair hearings, due process, and the assessee's right to present their case effectively.