ITAT Jodhpur Restores Section 80IBA Deduction Claim, Condones Delay Caused by Medical Emergency

Background of the Dispute

The case of Harish Gaurav Vs ADIT CPC came up before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, involving Assessment Year 2021-22. The core controversy revolved around:

  1. Rejection of the assessee’s appeal by the CIT(A) on the ground of 63 days’ delay in filing; and
  2. Non-adjudication of the assessee’s deduction claim under Section 80IBA amounting to ₹67,14,290; and
  3. The scope of adjustments permissible by the CPC when processing returns where the original return was filed within the prescribed time.

The CIT(A), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Pune, had dismissed the first appeal as non-maintainable solely due to the delay, without going into the merits of the deduction claim. This led the assessee to approach the ITAT Jodhpur.

Facts Presented Before the Tribunal

Medical Reason for Delay

The assessee’s authorised representative explained that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) occurred due to a serious medical condition:

  • The assessee had a long-standing diabetic history.
  • During a critical three-month period leading up to the filing deadline and passing of the impugned order, the assessee suffered severe complications, resulting in hospitalisation.
  • Medical records, including discharge summaries and treatment documents (placed at Page Nos. 15 to 18 of the paper book), were produced to substantiate these facts.

It was specifically argued that:

  • The assessee was genuinely incapacitated during the relevant period.
  • The delay was unintentional and solely attributable to circumstances beyond his control.
  • These reasons had already been brought to the notice of the CIT(A) along with documentary evidence, but the CIT(A) failed to appreciate them.

Approach of the CIT(A)

The CIT(A):

  • Declined to condone the 63-day delay in filing the appeal;
  • Declared the appeal invalid and non-maintainable as time-barred;
  • Did not examine or adjudicate the issue regarding disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80IBA on merits.

This led to a challenge before the Tribunal, alleging violation of principles of natural justice, as the assessee’s medically supported explanation was disregarded.

Argument for Liberal Interpretation

The assessee’s counsel stressed that:

  • The law of limitation for filing appeals is procedural in nature, and therefore a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted.
  • Genuine causes supported by evidence, particularly medical emergencies, should not result in denial of adjudication on merits.

In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on: