The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, has affirmed that severe medical conditions coupled with a nationwide public health emergency can constitute reasonable cause for condoning substantial delays in filing tax appeals. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice when litigants are rendered incapable of timely compliance through no fault of their own.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The assessee, Bharat Natwarlal Dave, faced best judgment assessment and penalty proceedings under Sections 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2013-14. Notices were sent to an address in Nandurbar where his elderly, uneducated mother resided, while he was living in Vadodara. He remained unaware of these proceedings until recovery actions were initiated years later.
Procedural History
- 2018: Best judgment assessment order passed under Section 144
- 2019: Penalty order issued; assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) on 23.09.2019 and 04.10.2019
- 01.12.2021: CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders dismissing the appeals
- 03.02.2025: Assessee filed appeals before ITAT - over three years after the CIT(A) order
- 28.03.2025: ITAT admitted the appeal without adjudicating condonation of delay
- 10.03.2026: ITAT rectified its earlier order after Revenue challenged the omission
Relief Sought
The assessee sought condonation of delay under Section 249A of the Income Tax Act, arguing that his inability to file timely appeals stemmed from a debilitating diagnosis of Lepromatous Leprosy, prolonged medical treatment, and the nationwide COVID-19 lockdowns.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 249A permits condonation of a delay of over three years in filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal when the delay is attributable to a severe medical condition and a national public health emergency.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The assessee relied on his sworn affidavit and medical documentation to establish that:
- He was diagnosed with Lepromatous Leprosy in 2021 - a socially stigmatized, contagious disease requiring isolation and frequent hospital visits
- His physical and mental condition rendered him incapable of monitoring postal notices or engaging with tax consultants
- He was under continuous medical care from 2017 onward, with treatment intensifying during 2020 - 2022
- The COVID-19 lockdowns (March 2020 - May 2022) further restricted mobility and access to legal services
- He only became aware of the CIT(A) orders in December 2024, after which he acted promptly to file the appeal He cited Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh to argue that genuine hardship, not mere negligence, justifies condonation.
For the Respondent
The Revenue contended that:
- The delay of 3 years and 2 months was excessive and unexplained
- The affidavit lacked corroboration from official medical records
- The assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) earlier, suggesting awareness of the appellate process
- The delay could not be excused merely on grounds of illness or pandemic, absent proof of continuous incapacity
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a holistic review of the medical evidence, including hospital certificates and photographs of skin lesions, which prima facie corroborated the severity of the condition. It noted that Lepromatous Leprosy, as defined by WHO, involves widespread nerve damage and social isolation - conditions incompatible with regular correspondence or legal compliance.
"We find that due to 'reasonable cause' assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit."
The Tribunal explicitly relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, which holds that Section 249A must be interpreted liberally to prevent injustice, and on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which recognizes that prolonged illness can constitute a valid reason for delay. It further drew parallels with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022), which excluded the pandemic period from limitation calculations across civil and criminal proceedings.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that the assessee’s prior engagement with the appellate system negated his claim. It emphasized that awareness of a process does not equate to capacity to participate in it during a medical crisis. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent, but the unavoidable consequence of a life-altering health emergency compounded by a national crisis.
The Verdict
The assessee prevailed. The ITAT Pune held that Section 249A permits condonation of delay when the cause is genuine, non-deliberate, and rooted in severe medical hardship and extraordinary public circumstances. The earlier order was rectified to include the condonation of delay, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Emergency Overrides Procedural Deadlines
- Practitioners must now document and submit comprehensive medical records - including diagnosis, treatment timelines, and hospital certifications - to support delay condonation claims
- Conditions like leprosy, cancer, or neurological disorders that impair mobility, cognition, or social interaction are now recognized as valid grounds for condonation
- Affidavits alone are insufficient; corroboration through clinical records is essential
Pandemic as a Valid Extenuating Factor
- The period of COVID-19 lockdowns (March 2020 - May 2022) may be treated as an independent ground for delay, even if not the sole cause
- Litigants who missed deadlines due to restricted movement, hospital closures, or fear of infection may invoke Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re as binding precedent
- Tax consultants must advise clients to preserve pandemic-related restrictions as part of their delay explanation
Procedural Omissions Can Be Rectified
- Tribunals may rectify their own orders to address omissions in condonation adjudication, even after admission of appeal
- Revenue’s challenge to an order that failed to address delay does not automatically invalidate the appeal - the merits of condonation must be examined
- Practitioners should proactively seek rectification of orders that omit key procedural findings, as this judgment affirms the tribunal’s inherent power to correct such errors
