Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2016-17 with a delay of approximately 363 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee not receiving notices and orders from the CIT(A) due to an outdated email ID on record, which belonged to a former employee, despite having intimated a change.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be a bona fide mistake not attributable to the assessee, citing principles from Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. It then remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo consideration on both legal issues (validity of assessment/search proceedings, limitation) and merits, directing the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to furnish evidence and grant a proper hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal should be condoned due to communication issues, and whether the assessment and search proceedings were valid and within the period of limitation.
Sections Cited
51 of the Limitation Act, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Per Bench: Present group of appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2016-17, arise out of the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A) -50, Mumbai [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated as follows:- Assessee Group Date of CIT(A)’s order Shipra Fabrics Private 25/01/2023 Limited P. Saji Textiles Ltd. 24/01/2023 Samapada Chemicals Ltd. 25/01/2023 Sunrise Asian Ltd. 24/01/2023
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there is a delay of about 363 days in filing of the present appeals before this Tribunal. He submitted that at the time of first appellate proceedings, assessee furnished acknowledged copy of letter dated 27/02/2019 placed at page 305 of the paper book intimating the office of the ld. CIT(A) to issue notices for hearing on the e-mail id mentioned therein. He submitted that, the e-mail id that was appearing on the portal as well as per the PAN data is of an employee who left the employment during 2016. The Ld. AR submitted that, all correspondences pertaining to the hearing as well as the impugned orders were communicated to the assessee as per email id on the Portal & PAN data vis-à-vis the e-mail id intimated by the assessee vide letter dated 27/02/2019. He submitted that, the assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A) and take necessary steps to file the appeal immediately upon passing of the orders by the Ld. CIT(A) for the years under consideration. 2.1. The Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned as assessee immediately took necessary steps to file appeals before this Tribunal, the moment it came to the notice of the impugned orders having passed. The Ld. AR submitted that it is a bonafide mistake without any malice intention. He thus requested for the delay to be condoned.
1. 2.2. The Ld. DR vehemently opposed the delay to be condoned by filing written submissions, however, could not controvert the letter filed by the assessee intimating the change in the e-mail id which is acknowledged by the concerned Officer of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of the records placed before us.
It is noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the present appeals before this Tribunal, within the period of limitation. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.
3.1. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
1. 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
3.2. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee. In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice. Accordingly, we condone the delay caused in filing present appeals before this Tribunal.
On merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that various legal issues were raised by assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority for all years challenging validity of the assessment proceeding. It is submitted that the legal issues raised requires necessary verification of the assessment records. He submitted that, even on merits, assessee has evidence in support of its claim which could not be furnished before the authorities below due to the non-receipt of the notices. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts on the issue challenging the validity of the search proceedings/assessment proceedings.
4.1. The Ld. DR on the contrary submitted that the issues raised by the assessee needs to be verified and cross-checked in order to take a conscious decision. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in the light of the records placed before us.
It is noted that assessee is challenging the validity of the search proceedings, assessment proceedings and has raised ground of assessment order having passed beyond the period of limitation, apart from other issues contested on merits of the addition. In our considered opinion, the legal issues deserve to be verified by Ld. CIT(A) having regards to the assessment records. In the interest of justice, we, therefore, remit all the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider it de novo in accordance with law. Assessee is at liberty to furnish all evidence in support of its claim on legal issue as well as on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to investigate upon the evidence furnished by the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard may be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in all the above appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/11/2025