Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned by ITAT Due to Death in Assessee’s Family

Harish Dharma Rathod Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of delay in filing.

The assessee raised several grounds before the Tribunal contending that the order passed by the CIT(A) was arbitrary, contrary to law, and violative of principles of natural justice. It was argued that the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal mechanically without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating the case on merits. The assessee further contended that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation request despite detailed reasons being furnished for the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) had been filed with a delay of 134 days. To explain the delay, the assessee had submitted an application seeking condonation along with detailed reasons. However, the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation and dismissed the appeal relying on certain judicial precedents.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. During the hearing, the authorised representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee had a strong case on merits and had nothing to gain by deliberately filing the appeal late. It was further explained that the assessee’s father had passed away, and time was required to bring the legal representative on record. The assessee also argued that no effective opportunity was granted by the CIT(A) to explain the case on merits and that the appellate order did not contain any adjudication on substantive grounds raised in the appeal.

The Departmental Representative relied upon the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

After considering the submissions and examining the orders of the lower authorities, the Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a proper opportunity of hearing and that the appeal ought to be decided on merits. The Tribunal observed that the death of the assessee’s father constituted a valid reason for the delay and that the delay involved was minimal. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and to pass a fresh order on merits. In support of its view, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (69 taxmann.com 407), wherein it was held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal without discussing the merits and grounds raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

The appellant filed an appeal with the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.

2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of “audi alteram partem”.

3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice.

4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant only on the ground of not providing reasons for the condonation of delay as the appeal was delayed by 145 days.

5. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant’s appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal and without going into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal filed against the impugned assessment order.

6. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has misdirected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the judgements passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.

7. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant’s appeal without granting final opportunity of making submissions in regard to the appeal filed against the impugned assessment order.

8. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the appellate order in a mechanical way, without application of mind and without appreciating the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

9. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.

10. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”

2. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 134 days. As there is a delay in filing appeal, the appellant filed an application before Ld. CIT(A) requesting him to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits. In this application, the appellant gave reasons for delay in detail. But, the Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the reasoning and hence dismissed the appeal, by quoting certain cases-law.

3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was filed before the ITAT with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order.

4. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR of the appellant has argued as follows :-

a) The appellant has a very good case on merits and he is not going to gain anything by filing an appeal with delay.

b) The father of appellant passed away and it took some time to bring to get the legal representative on record.

c) The appellant was not granted any opportunity to explain the case on merits by Ld. CIT(A).

d) The order of Ld. CIT(A) does not contain adjudication on merits, even though several grounds of appeal were raised on merits.

5. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A).

6. After perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and hearing both sides, it is decided that the appellant should be given proper opportunity to be heard and his case should be disposed of on merits. As the appellant’s father passed away and the reason for delay is minimal, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to give an opportunity to the appellant and pass the order on merits. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (69 com 407)(Bom), has held that Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal without discussing the case on merits and other grounds of appeal raised by appellant.

7. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes as above.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/04/2025.