Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against reassessment proceedings completed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were filed with significant delays for assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the explanation of the assessee regarding the lapse of her counsel. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned due to the negligence of the authorized representative and whether the appeals should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 56(2)(x), 56(2)(vii)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders, both dated 30.09.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising out of reassessment proceedings completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2016–17 and 2018–19.
Khushi Sanjay Khandar 2. At the threshold, it is noticed that both the appeals are barred by limitation. There is a delay of 513 days in filing the appeal for assessment year 2018–19 and a delay of 329 days in filing the appeal for assessment year 2016–17. In support of the prayer for condonation of delay, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to such delay. The affidavit filed for assessment year 2018–19 contains similar averments as those made for assessment year 2016–17.
Khushi Sanjay Khandar 3. After carefully considering the contents of the affidavit and the submissions made at the time of hearing, it emerges that the assessee is not well educated and was entirely dependent upon her counsel for pursuing the appellate proceedings. It has been specifically stated that due to lack of awareness and non-communication on the part of the earlier counsel, the assessee remained unaware of the passing of the impugned appellate orders, resulting in the delayed filing of the present appeals. The explanation tendered appears to be bona fide and does not reflect any deliberate or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. In such circumstances, and keeping in view the settled principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the delay of 513 days in assessment year 2018–19 and 329 days in assessment year 2016–17 is hereby condoned.
On merits, it is observed that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals ex parte on account of alleged non-compliance. It has been contended before us that the authorised representative appointed by the assessee could not effectively respond to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and, owing to her lack of awareness, the assessee herself could not pursue the matter. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one final opportunity to present her case before the first appellate authority.
Khushi Sanjay Khandar 5. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters for both the assessment years are restored to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for adjudication afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29th December, 2025.