Sufficient cause for delay justified setting aside ex parte assessment orders and remand for fresh adjudication.

Delay in challenging assessment orders was treated as sufficiently explained where one petitioner was hospitalised in ICU, the business had closed, and the other partner was abroad. On that factual basis, the ex parte assessment and appellate orders were set aside. The court considered that remand to the appellate forums would serve no useful purpose and that the matter should be restored to the assessing officer for a fresh decision after giving the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence. The relief was granted subject to costs and compliance directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay in challenging the assessment orders and whether the ex parte assessment and appellate orders were liable to be set aside and the matter restored to the assessing officer.

Analysis: The petitioners explained that the assessment orders had been served, but one petitioner was subsequently hospitalised and kept in ICU, the business had been closed, and the other partner was abroad. In these circumstances, the delay was held to be sufficiently explained. The Court found that remand to the appellate fora would serve no purpose and that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the orders and restoring the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision after giving the petitioners an opportunity to produce evidence.

Conclusion: The petitioners succeeded on the question of sufficient cause, and the assessment and appellate orders were set aside with restoration of the matter to the assessing officer, subject to costs and compliance directions.

---