The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has reaffirmed that technical objections to delay in filing tax appeals must yield to the principle of substantial justice when unchallenged medical grounds are presented. This ruling restores seven appeals dismissed on procedural grounds and sets a clear precedent for equitable treatment of taxpayers facing health-related impediments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rohit Singh Bohra, faced seven separate proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department across seven assessment years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. These proceedings involved notices under Section 147 read with Section 144 for reassessment, penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, and penalties under Section 271AAC(1) for failure to report specified domestic transactions. The Assessing Officer passed orders in each case between 2020 and 2022. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC), but these were rejected solely on the ground of delay.
Key Facts
- The appellant filed appeals against seven orders issued by the Assessing Officer between 2020 and 2022
- The delays in filing these appeals ranged from 494 to 858 days
- The appellant submitted medical records citing serious health complications during the relevant periods
- The CIT(A)/NFAC acknowledged receipt of medical evidence but held that it did not conclusively prove incapacity to file appeals
- No rebuttal evidence was offered by the Revenue to challenge the authenticity or impact of the medical conditions
- The appellant’s representations were not addressed on merit; dismissal was based purely on procedural non-compliance
Procedural History
- 2020 - 2022: Assessing Officer passed orders under Sections 147, 144, 271(1)(c), and 271AAC(1) across seven assessment years
- Dates of orders: Not specified individually, but all issued between 2020 and 2022
- Dates of filing appeals: Between 18 to 28 months after each order, resulting in delays of 494 to 858 days
- 2025: Appeals filed before CIT(A)/NFAC
- 2025 - 2026: CIT(A)/NFAC issued seven orders (DINs: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085304690(1) to ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085303901(1)) dismissing appeals for delay
- 29.05.2026: Hearing before ITAT Delhi, Delhi Bench
Relief Sought
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing appeals and restoration of the appeals for adjudication on merits. He requested that the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC be set aside and the matters be remanded for fresh consideration.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 permits the appellate authority to dismiss appeals solely on the ground of delay when the assessee has submitted unchallenged medical grounds for the delay, and whether the doctrine of substantial justice overrides technical compliance.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the medical evidence submitted was sufficient to establish a plausible reason for delay. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others, it was contended that courts and tribunals must prioritize substantial justice over rigid procedural adherence. The absence of any rebuttal from the Revenue, the counsel submitted, rendered the CIT(A)/NFAC’s refusal to condone delay arbitrary and contrary to settled law.
For the Respondent
The Revenue contended that the medical documents were not accompanied by affidavits or certificates from treating physicians establishing complete incapacitation. It argued that the delay was unexplained and that the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in applying strict compliance standards to prevent abuse of process. The Revenue further submitted that the appellant had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing his remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had mechanically rejected the appellant’s explanation for delay without evaluating whether the medical condition had, in fact, prevented timely filing. The authority had noted the existence of medical records but failed to determine whether they substantiated the claim of incapacity.
"We are of the considered view that such an approach could hardly deserves to be concurred with once the assessee's detailed reasons seeking condonation of delay due to medical complications have gone unrebutted in principle."
The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court in Collector, Land & Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others had laid down that technicalities must not defeat justice, particularly in matters involving personal hardship. The Court held that the burden of disproving the medical explanation lay with the Revenue, which had not discharged it. The CIT(A)/NFAC’s refusal to condone delay was therefore legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal further clarified that Section 250(6) empowers the appellate authority to condone delay and restore appeals for adjudication on merits, and that this power must be exercised liberally where the reasons are credible and unchallenged.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Tribunal set aside the seven orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated in 2025 - 2026, restored all seven appeals for fresh adjudication on merits, and directed that the appellant be granted three effective hearing opportunities to present his case. The Tribunal explicitly stated that failure to avail these opportunities would be at the appellant’s own risk. All other issues were kept open pending fresh adjudication.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Grounds Must Be Taken Seriously
- Practitioners must ensure medical records are submitted with appeals where health issues are cited as grounds for delay
- Absence of rebuttal from the Revenue creates a strong presumption in favor of condonation
- Tribunals and appellate authorities cannot dismiss appeals on delay without evaluating the plausibility of medical explanations
Substantial Justice Overrides Technicality
- Katiji remains binding precedent: procedural lapses cannot override fairness in tax adjudication
- The burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove claims of incapacity or hardship
- Taxpayers facing prolonged illness, hospitalization, or mental health crises are entitled to equitable treatment under Section 250(6)
Procedural Fairness in Faceless Appeals
- The rise of faceless appellate mechanisms increases risk of mechanical dismissals
- This judgment mandates that even in automated systems, human discretion must be exercised to assess hardship
- Tax professionals should routinely include affidavits or doctor’s notes with delay condonation applications, even if not strictly required
