HC permits 161-day delay in appeal filing under Section 253, citing medical reasons and no Revenue dispute

The HC allowed the condonation of a 161-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, overturning the ITAT's rejection. The delay was attributed to the assessee's personal and family medical issues, supported by an affidavit and medical documents. The court noted the absence of any counter-affidavit from the Revenue disputing these reasons. Relying on SC precedent advocating a liberal approach to delay condonation, the HC held the delay justified and answered the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee, permitting the appeal to proceed despite the initial limitation bar.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was sufficiently explained to justify condonation of delay.Whether the ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation due to the delay without adopting a justice-oriented and liberal approach.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT deserves to be condoned as the reason assigned by the appellant-medical issues including major surgery of the appellant's wife and the appellant's own ill health-was not controverted by the respondent and supported by affidavit and medical documents.The Court found the ITAT's order dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay to be unjustified and perverse to the record, emphasizing that the ITAT ought to have adopted a "justice oriented and liberal approach" in condoning the delay, following the Supreme Court's precedent.The substantial question of law formulated was answered in favour of condonation of delay, and the matter was remitted to the ITAT for adjudication on merits.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the principle established by the Supreme Court that delay in filing appeals should be condoned where sufficient cause is shown, and a "justice oriented and liberal approach" is warranted rather than a rigid application of limitation rules.The Court relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision condoning a similar delay of 166 days, holding that the High Court erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay without considering the appellant's explanation and medical circumstances.The absence of any counter-affidavit or challenge to the appellant's reasons for delay by the respondent reinforced the Court's conclusion that the delay was justified and should be condoned.The ruling reflects a doctrinal emphasis on substantive justice over procedural technicalities in tax appeal proceedings involving delay applications.

---