Bona fide pursuit of alternate remedy justified delay condonation; ex parte assessment without hearing was set aside.

Bona fide pursuit of an alternative statutory remedy was treated as sufficient cause for condoning delay, because the assessee had acted on a written indication that reopening would be considered and the delay was not deliberate. The objection that the appeal was time-barred therefore failed. An assessment made ex parte on the hearing date, without considering a pending adjournment request and without granting a fair opportunity of hearing, was held to be procedurally vitiated. The assessment order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee due opportunity in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the appellate authority deserved condonation on the facts; (ii) Whether the assessment made without considering the adjournment request and without granting a proper opportunity of hearing could stand.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the appellate authority deserved condonation on the facts.

Analysis: The assessee had pursued a bona fide request for reopening of the assessment and was led to believe that an alternative statutory remedy was being entertained. The record also showed a written response from the assessing authority indicating that the assessment would be reopened. In such circumstances, the delay could not be treated as deliberate or lacking due diligence. The Tribunal treated the assessee's conduct as bona fide prosecution of an alternative remedy and held that sufficient cause existed.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly held to be condonable and the objection that the appeal was time-barred failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment made without considering the adjournment request and without granting a proper opportunity of hearing could stand.

Analysis: The assessment was made ex parte on the very date fixed for hearing without dealing with the pending adjournment request placed on record. Such a course was inconsistent with fair procedure and resulted in denial of opportunity. The subsequent conduct of the assessing authority, including the communication to reopen the assessment, reinforced the conclusion that the original order was not passed in accordance with law. Since the assessment itself was vitiated for want of proper hearing, the order of the appellate authority also could not survive.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was directed to be redone after giving the assessee a fresh opportunity in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded, the time-bar objection was rejected, and both the assessment and the appellate order were annulled for fresh consideration by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide pursuit of an alternative statutory remedy can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and an assessment passed without considering a pending adjournment request and without fair opportunity of hearing is liable to be set aside.

---