Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal due to a 125-day delay and alleged non-existent challans. The assessee claimed the mismatch was a technical error but failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay or respond to opportunities given by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lackadaisical conduct but, in the interest of substantial justice, allowed one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the condonation of delay and, if successful, on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be admitted despite a significant delay, and if so, whether the issue of tax payment mismatch constitutes a technical error that should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
143(1), 249(4)(a), 250(4), 250(6), 276CC, 277, 249
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM& SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
issue cannot be adjudicated, unless the impugned order challenged before us, has any finding qua the merits of the issue in terms of provisions of section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
Before us none appeared on behalf of the assessee, which found to be at par with the assessee’s conduct before Ld. CIT(A) also, however, on perusal of record and after hearing the respondent revenue, we consider it apt to dispose- off this matter, in the interest of justice.
It is apparent on the face of record that, the assessee had not responded before the Ld. CIT(A) to explain the sufficiency of cause for delay in filing of appeal in terms of the conditions stipulated u/s 249(4)(a) of the Act, neither had furnished any submission qua the merits of issue assailed. The observations made by the Ld. CIT(A), inferring that the appellant / assessee defrauded the revenue by mentioning non-existing challans for various assessment years, thus, had invoked provisions of section 276CC and 277, stating the willful attempt by the assessee to evade taxes and false statement in verification, cannot be concurred with in toto, unless the response of assessee would also be looked into, before deciding the issues one sided.
In present matter, we appreciate the finding of Ld.CIT(A), that the assessee was lackadaisical and negligent during the appellate proceedings,but in the interest of substantial justice, we find it appropriate to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to rebut with the documentary evidence to explain first the sufficient cause beyond his control to justify the condonation of delay in terms of provisions of section 249 of the Act and further qua the merits on controversy raised.
We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, first on condonation of delay and if assessee succeed to substantiate the reasons for delay, then to decide the same on merits. This proposition is confronted to and fairly conceded by the Ld. SR. DR representing the revenue.
Needless to say, that the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunities of being heard, however, the assessee should be compliant towards the notices issue and assist properly in the set aside appellate proceedings, failing which no further opportunities shall be granted, the Ld. CIT(A) would then be at liberty to decide the appeal and pass an appropriate order following the mandate of law.
Appeal of assessee, accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our observations herein above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29-12-2025.