Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 208 days due to the ill health and passing of successive chairpersons of the trust, and the subsequent management's lack of tech-savviness, leading to them being unaware of the CIT(A)'s order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient and reasonable cause for the non-appearance. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2017-18) Sucheta Memorial Trust, Income Tax Officer, Site No,01, Sector-05, Ward-Exemptions Gurgaon-122001. Vs. Faridabad, Harnaya. PAN:AADTS5370A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. Department by Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, dated 14.03.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A)-Faridabad/11207/2019-20 for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is filed delayed by 208 days for which separate petition is filed wherein it is submitted that the founder chairperson Mrs. Usha Satija passed away in December 2011 and the successive chairman of the trust Dr. Balwant Rai Satiza failed to supervise and carry out the operations due his poor health and old age. The activities of the trust are now looked after by their daughter Ms. Aparajita and Son Dr. Sarvesh Satija. They are not tech- savvy and are not proficient in navigating the portal and checking the ongoing proceedings and thus were unaware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Since the appellate order was never served physically served at the registered address of the appellant, they were unaware of the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It was only during the month of November, 2024 that the chartered accountant of the appellant on going through the E-Filing Portal of the Income-Tax Department during filing of the 2 IT No.6035/Del/2024 Sucheta Memorial Trust vs. ITO income tax returns came across the fact that order u/s 250 of the Income- Tax Act, had been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) way back in March, 2024. It is thus, requested that the delay may please be condoned and appeal be admitted. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471, Ram Nath Sao v Gobardhan Sao and Others reported in (2002) AIR 1201 and coordinate Indore bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Bhawani Shankar Prashar vs Pr. CIT-1 Indore in ITA No. 411/Ind/2022
On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR objected to the petition filed by the assessee and requested for disposal of the appeal.
4 Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee and the reasons stated therein, we find that there is sufficient and reasonable cause with the assessee for non-appearance / compliance before the ld. CIT(A) in response to the notices issued for hearing. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against it. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must take utmost consideration to such litigant and right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Looking to these facts, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.
In Grounds of appeal No.1 and 2, assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte without providing proper opportunities of being heard and it is a violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that due to non-conversant with e-portal of the department, the management of the assessee trust was not aware of notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the same remained unattended. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee to represent the case before the Ld. CIT(A) and to file the documentary evidence in support of the grounds of appeal taken.
3 IT No.6035/Del/2024 Sucheta Memorial Trust vs. ITO 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is clearly evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided many opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee trust had not filed any details/submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). It was under these circumstance, the Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to decide the appeal filed by the assessee trust by confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. It is true that assessee did not comply with notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(a) and did not file requisite details/documentary evidence to support the claims. Under these facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunities to both the parties. Liberty is granted to the assessee to produce the relevant documents and evidences and other details as are required to prove the case before the Ld. CIT(A). Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2025.