PMG INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-21(2), DELHI

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 22/11/2023for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perusing the material available on record.

There is a delay of 330 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee as the same has been reached to the junk folder, therefore, the notice could not be read on time, which resulted in passing of the ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

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

We have heard the Department's Representative 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 notice sent by the Ld. CIT(A) has not been received in primary inbox of the Assessee and automatically filtered into junk folder, therefore, the Appeal could not be filed on time by the Assessee.

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 330 days in filing the present Appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that, an ex-parte assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed vide order impugned.

The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings and even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.