Santosh Kumar Ramlaxman Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Substantial Justice Overrides Limitation — 182-Day Delay Condoned; Ex-parte Dismissal by CIT(A) Set Aside
The Tribunal held that the assessee had established sufficient and bona fide cause for the delay of 182 days in filing the appeal, noting that he was a non-resident and was genuinely unaware of the reassessment proceedings culminating in an ex-parte order under section 144 of the Act . It was observed that there was no mala fide intention or deliberate inaction, and the Revenue failed to place any counter-affidavit or material to rebut the explanation furnished by the assessee . Relying on the authoritative dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471), the Tribunal reiterated that when technicalities conflict with substantial justice, the latter must prevail . Further reliance was placed on People Education & Economic Development Society v. ITO (100 ITD 87) (TM) and CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai (153 ITR 596) to hold that the length of delay is not decisive where a reasonable cause exists . Following Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (277 ITR 1) and Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi (AIR 1978 SC 537), the Tribunal noted that non-opposition by the Revenue itself strengthens the case for condonation . Consequently, the delay was condoned and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication of all grounds on merits, including jurisdictional challenges to reopening and the addition under section 69, after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
