Facts of the Case

The assessee, Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2021-22 against the appellate order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). An intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 22.03.2022 was issued by CPC, Bengaluru, raising a demand of ₹3,14,270.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) along with a request for condonation of delay. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, treating it as inadmissible and without deciding the appeal on merits. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
  2. Whether serious medical conditions constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 249(3) for condonation of delay.
  3. Whether the appeal deserved to be admitted and decided on merits.

 Petitioner’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

The assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to severe medical issues, including surgery for kidney stones and complications arising from diabetes and prostate problems. It was contended that the assessee is a senior citizen and was under prolonged medical treatment with no one else to attend to tax matters.

The assessee also pointed out that incorrect salary details were reported by the employer in Form 16, which were later corrected, leading to incorrect assessment under Section 143(1). It was submitted that these circumstances constituted reasonable and sufficient cause for delay.

 Respondent’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

The Revenue relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered the matter on the basis of material available on record.

 Court Order / Findings

The ITAT observed that the assessee had placed on record detailed medical papers and medical history substantiating the claim of illness. The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that this was a fit case for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) and that the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal. Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the impugned appellate order dated 03.12.2024 and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and pass a de novo order on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

 Important Clarification / Legal Principle

Genuine medical hardship, particularly in the case of senior citizens, constitutes “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act. Appeals should not be dismissed on technical grounds where the delay is properly explained and supported by evidence.

Link to download the order -  https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770872026_RAKESHKUMARSRIVASTAVAALLAHABADVS.THEINCOMETAXOFFICER21ALLAHABAD.pdf  

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.