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.
Assessee Represented by : Shri Sachin Kumar
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
