ANIRUDH SINGH PATEL,BHOPAL V. CIT(A), DELHI

ITA 798/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anirudh Singh Patel, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order by the ITO-2(3), Bhopal for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The primary contention was the delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the health issues of the assessee and his counsel. The ITAT admitted the appeal despite the delay, citing substantial justice over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the first appeal was challenged on grounds of misinterpretation of the assessee's compliance with hearing notices and the submission of necessary documentary evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397902 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEE; FORREVENUELEFTTHEMATTER; FORREVENUEDREWUSTOPARAANDOFASSESSMENTORDERTO; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIGOVINDRINWA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 5 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.798/Ind/2024 Assessment Year:2007-08 Anirudh Singh Patel, E-2/242, Arera Colony, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. ITO ward 3(3) Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: ALVPP3186G Assessee by Shri Govind Rinwa, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 10.03.2015 passed by learned ITO-2(3), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Anurudh Singh Patel ITA No. 798/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08 Page 2 of 5 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed on 07.11.2024 against impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by CIT(A) after a delay of 174 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. On perusal of the application/affidavit, we observe that the assessee has stated that he has been suffering from disease called “Parkinson” for past three years and the illness has been progressively increasing with the passage of time limiting assessee’s physical and cognitive abilities. Further, the counsel of assessee Shri Nand Kishore Malviya also suffered a paralytic attack and has been undergoing medical treatment as well as therapy. The assessee has filed a bunch of medical prescriptions of Dr. Nirendra Kumar Roy, Neurocity Hospital, Bhopal in support of his own illness and Apollo Hospital, Bhopal in support of illness of his counsel. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is the illness of assessee and assessee’s counsel. He submitted that there is a “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act Anurudh Singh Patel ITA No. 798/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08 Page 3 of 5 empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. Ld. AR next drew us to the impugned order passed by CIT(A) and demonstrated that the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by wrongly stating that the notices of hearings fixed on various dates, sent by him remained uncompiled with by assessee. Ld. AR carried us to Pages 5 to 11 of Paper-Book where the acknowledgements downloaded from e-filing portal of Income-tax dated 26.05.2022, 19.01.2023, 02.05.2023, 18.05.2023, 07.12.2023 are filed. Referring to same, Ld. AR successfully demonstrated that the assessee has filed as many as five replies to CIT(A). Further referring to contents of those replies, Ld. AR also pointed out that the assessee filed all documentary evidences to CIT(A), copies of the documentary evidences filed by assessee are also filed at Pages 12 – 38 of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and the AO has made additions of cash deposits (+) credit entries found in bank a/c but the evidences filed by assessee are contemporary and sufficient Anurudh Singh Patel ITA No. 798/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08 Page 4 of 5 evidences to explain the sources and nature of deposit and credit entries. Ld. AR requested to take an appropriate call considering the documents of assessee. 4. Ld. DR for revenue drew us to Para 4 and 5 of assessment-order to show that the assessee has not filed evidences before AO. Therefore, Ld. DR proposed that the present matter may be remanded back to the file of AO for consideration afresh with a clear direction to assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. 5. Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Anurudh Singh Patel ITA No. 798/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08 Page 5 of 5 6. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 06/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 06/06/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "