Santosh Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
5 Years 11 Months Delay—Medical Hardship – Limitation vs Natural Justice: Tribunal Says Evidence Must Be Examined First
Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A)-NFAC on 12.11.2024 against reassessment order u/s 144/147 dated 08.12.2018, resulting in a delay of 5 years 11 months 4 days. Form 35 showed “No” against delay & no condonation petition was filed. CIT(A) dismissed appeal solely on limitation without examining merits.
Before Tribunal, Assessee produced an application under Rule 29 along with extensive medical records showing his minor son was diagnosed with nephrotic syndrome on 24.12.2018 & treatment continued at Ambikapur, Varanasi & Raipur. Assessee claimed his entire attention was focused on the child, causing unintentional delay & non-receipt of departmental notices.
Tribunal held that the additional evidence must first be examined by CIT(A) under s.249(3) to determine whether “sufficient cause” existed for condoning such extraordinary delay. Tribunal emphasized that natural justice requires fair consideration of genuine hardships but limitation law must be respected. Accordingly, the CIT(A)’s dismissal order was set aside & matter remanded with direction to first decide condonation based on new evidence & only thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
