The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that a delay of 12 days in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be condoned when attributable to a genuine medical emergency of the authorized representative. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities must not override substantive justice, particularly where the assessee has demonstrated sufficient cause and the merits of the case remain unaddressed.
The Verdict
The assessee won. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned a 12-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on grounds of medical emergency affecting the authorized representative. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on technical grounds and directed the CIT(A) to hear the appeal on its merits, ensuring the assessee receives a fair opportunity to substantiate their case under Sections 69, 69A, 69C, and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
Background & Facts
The assessee, Sahirbhai Kothiya, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against an assessment order for the year 2019-20, which made substantial additions under Sections 69, 69A, 69C, and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, totaling over Rs. 2.15 crore. The appeal was filed 12 days after the statutory deadline. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without examining the merits, holding that the delay was not adequately explained.
The assessee’s authorized representative, Shri Varis Isani, submitted medical records showing that his father, a senior citizen, suffered a critical cardiac emergency in April-May 2024, requiring intensive care and prolonged hospitalization. These circumstances rendered the representative unable to manage legal filings during that period. The delay application was annexed but not considered by the CIT(A).
The assessee also submitted assessment orders of co-owners in the same property transaction, where no additions were made, suggesting inconsistency in the Assessing Officer’s approach. The appeal was then filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking condonation of delay and relief on merits.
The Legal Issue
Can a delay of 12 days in filing an appeal under Section 249A of the Income Tax Act be condoned solely on the ground of a medical emergency affecting the authorized representative, even if the delay is not accompanied by formal documentation at the time of filing?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay was not due to negligence but to an unforeseen and unavoidable medical crisis affecting the authorized representative. He submitted certified medical reports from a consulting cardiologist and hospital records dated April and May 2024, establishing the severity and duration of the emergency. He relied on judicial precedents holding that procedural fairness under Article 14 and the principles of natural justice require courts and tribunals to look beyond technicalities when substantial rights are at stake. He further contended that the CIT(A)’s refusal to consider the merits violated the doctrine of audi alteram partem.
For the Respondent
The Revenue representative did not contest the factual basis of the medical emergency but argued that the delay was not accompanied by a timely application for condonation under Section 249A, and that the absence of prior intimation to the department rendered the explanation insufficient. She maintained that the statutory timelines are mandatory and that condonation should be granted only in exceptional cases with prior notice or compelling institutional reasons.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s rigid interpretation of procedural timelines. It held that Section 249A empowers the CIT(A) to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown, and that the term ‘sufficient cause’ must be interpreted liberally in favor of the assessee, particularly where the delay is attributable to circumstances beyond their control. The Tribunal noted that the medical emergency was not merely asserted but substantiated with credible documentation, including physician reports and test records.
"The assessee should not suffer for an arbitrary additions made by the Ld. A.O."
The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) had not examined the substantive grounds of appeal, including the inconsistency in treatment of co-owners and the validity of the additions under Sections 69 and 69A. It observed that dismissing an appeal without adjudicating on merits, especially when the delay is explained and documented, amounts to a denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing - a violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal further distinguished this case from those involving habitual defaulters or lack of diligence, noting that the assessee had acted promptly upon recovery and filed the appeal before the Tribunal within the statutory period. The direction to the CIT(A) to rehear the matter was framed as a corrective measure to uphold substantive justice, not as an endorsement of procedural laxity.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This decision reinforces that medical emergencies affecting authorized representatives constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in tax appeals, provided credible documentation is submitted. Practitioners should now routinely include detailed medical records, hospital discharge summaries, and physician affidavits when seeking condonation under Section 249A. The ruling also signals a judicial preference for adjudicating on merits over technical dismissal, particularly where the Revenue’s assessment appears inconsistent across similarly situated taxpayers.
However, the decision does not eliminate the burden of proof. Petitioners must still demonstrate a direct causal link between the emergency and the delay. Generic claims without supporting documents will not suffice. The Tribunal’s directive to the CIT(A) to provide a fresh hearing also underscores that condonation is not an end in itself - it is a gateway to substantive adjudication.
This precedent will be particularly relevant in cases involving elderly or ill taxpayers, where representation is often handled by family members or agents facing personal crises. It strengthens the procedural safeguards under the Income Tax Act and aligns tax adjudication more closely with constitutional principles of fairness.
