Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 24 days due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address, preventing them from appearing before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had confirmed additions made by the AO in an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the matter should be remanded for a de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) Mahabir Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Nangal Ward, Narnaul. Kalia, Narnaul-123001 Vs. PAN:CGKPM9657H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by CA Pranshu Singhal 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi (‘the CIT(A) in short) dated 26.02.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10168587 for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 24 days for which an affidavit along with condonation petition was filed by the assessee wherein it is stated that email-id provided in Form No.35 was different and the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) were on different email-id, therefore, the notices for hearing could not be served upon the assessee. Therefore, neither the assessee could be able to appear before ld. CIT(A) nor have any knowledge about the passing of the order by Ld. CIT(A). When the assessee received notice for pending penalty proceedings, he contacted with its counsel who intimated about the appellate prodder. Under these facts and circumstances, it is requested that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication.
2 IT No.1779/Del/2025 Mahabir vs. ITO 3. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR objected to the condonation of delay in the filing of the appeal.
Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee and the reasons stated therein, we find that there is sufficient and reasonable cause with the assessee where the assessee was not intimated on the correct email-id about the passing of the order and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the time. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. The delay in our considered opinion in filing the appeal is a result of unaware of online hearing procedure. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant and his 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.
Before us Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that due to the fact that notices were sent to incorrect email-id by the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not appear either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the assessment order as well as appellate order were passed ex- parte. It was the request of the assessee that one more opportunities be provided to represent his case before the lower authorities.
On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of AO and Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. From the perusal of the impugned order of CIT(A), NFAC, clearly shows that Ld. CIT(A) has provided several opportunities of hearing to the assessee but the assessee did file any written submissions/reply. It was in this background, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. Even the assessment order was passed u/s 147/144 of the Act due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer. Under these facts and circumstances of the case and in the