ITAT Pune Allows Delay in Income Tax Appeal Due to Illness and Death of Consultant: Fresh Hearing Ordered
Fact and Issue of the Case
In the case of Deepali Dilip Dhumale vs. Income Tax Officer, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) “A” Bench, Pune, addressed an appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2017–18. The assessee, Ms. Deepali Dilip Dhumale, faced a significant tax demand of ₹8.81 crore, following an assessment of her total income at ₹6.72 crore. The primary contention arose when the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dismissed her appeal due to a 374-day delay in filing, deeming the case weak on merits. Ms. Dhumale attributed the delay to her hospitalization and the critical illness and subsequent death of her tax practitioner. She contended that these circumstances constituted sufficient cause for the delay and sought condonation. The CIT(A), however, did not find these reasons compelling and dismissed the appeal without thoroughly examining the merits of the case or the evidence provided.
Observations by the Tribunal
Upon reviewing the appeal, the ITAT Pune observed that the reasons cited by Ms. Dhumale for the delay were substantiated with appropriate documentation, including medical certificates and an affidavit. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural delays should not override the pursuit of substantial justice. It highlighted that the CIT(A) had not adequately verified the bank statements submitted by the assessee, which indicated that the cash deposits amounting to ₹87.73 lakh were sourced from her business activities. The Tribunal noted that dismissing the appeal solely on procedural grounds, without a thorough examination of the evidence, resulted in grave injustice to the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a fair opportunity to present all necessary details and be heard.
Law Applicable
The ITAT’s decision was grounded in established legal principles that prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 8183–8184 of 2013), which advocates for a liberal approach in condoning delays when sufficient cause is demonstrated. The Court in this case laid down that justice-oriented approaches should prevail, especially when procedural lapses are unintentional and adequately explained. Additionally, the Tribunal considered precedents from the Bombay High Court that support a lenient stance towards delay condonation to prevent miscarriage of justice. These legal frameworks underscore the importance of ensuring that litigants are not deprived of their right to a fair hearing due to procedural lapses, particularly when such lapses are beyond their control.
Conclusion by the Tribunal
In conclusion, the ITAT Pune recognized that the 374-day delay in filing the appeal was justified by the assessee’s health issues and the demise of her tax consultant. Acknowledging the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)’s dismissal of the appeal. The case was remanded for de novo adjudication, with explicit instructions for the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present all relevant evidence and arguments. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that justice is not compromised by procedural formalities, especially when taxpayers face genuine hardships that impede their ability to comply with procedural timelines.
