OM BIOMEDIC PVT LTD,HISAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE- 19(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 398/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the circumstances and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal further found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and without deciding all grounds on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) for AY 2016-17, with a delay of 84 days. The assessee attributed the delay to the death of their CA, whose email was used for communication by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order violating principles of natural justice warrants a remand.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv
Hearing: 31/07/2025Pronounced: 13/08/2025

(A.Y 2016-17) Om Biomedic Private Limited Vs ACIT 134/5, Raipur Lane, HTM Road, Circle 19(1) Near Sector 1 & 4, Hisar-125005 Delhi Haryana Appellant Respondent PAN:AAACO7623G Assessee by Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 23/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

There is a delay of 84 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application contending that the Assessee has given the e-mail id of his CA to the Ld. CIT(A) while filing the first appeal and the said CA died on 23/12/2023. The communication for passing the order impugned has been sent to the e-mail id of deceased CA, therefore, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time before the Tribunal. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

3.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal.

It is the case of the Assessee that, Assessee has mentioned the e-mail id of his CA to the Ld. CIT(A) while filing the first appeal for any communication and the said CA died on 23/12/2023. The communication of passing the order impugned has been sent to the e- mail id of deceased CA, therefore, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time before the Tribunal.

5.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 84 days in filing the present Appeal.

6.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 28/12/2018 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28/12/2018, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 23/08/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

7.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

8.

The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of Lower authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) , the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits.

Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

10.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →