Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order of the CIT(A). There was a significant delay of 554 days in filing the appeal. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving notices, which were sent to an incorrect email address, and being unaware of the demand. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles of substantial justice over technicalities, as the assessee was unaware of the proceedings and was ex-parte before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal caused by non-receipt of notices can be condoned. Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication when the assessee was proceeded against ex-parte.
Sections Cited
139(1), 143(3), 56(2)(vii)(b), 250, 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2025 ORDER PERSANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018- 19.
At the very outset, I noticed that there is delay of 554 2. days in filing the present appeal and in this regard an application for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
I, Mrs. Shahjahan Shah Alam Shaikh, daughter of Mohammed Idra Shaikh, residing at Flat 506, 5th floor, Bldg No. 36, Surbhi CHSL, Nehru Nagar, Kurla East - 400024 do hereby, solemnly affirm, declare and state on oath as follows:
1. 1. That I had filed my return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19, bearing Acknowledgement Number 104336160110818.
2. During FY 2012-13 I booked flat worth INR 48,00,000 for which I had registered agreement in FY 2017-18 when stamp duty value of said property was INR 54,91,297, due to which the Learned Faceless Authority made an addition of INR 6,91,297 u/s 56(2) (vii) (b) of the Act vide order issued u/s 143(3) dated 01.03.2021.
3. Aggrieved by the said addition, I had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(Appeals). However, I did not receive notice or order on the email ID piyush.shah2011@yahoo.co.in, provided in Form 35 application in this regard. Instead, the communications were received on sunil.investment@yahoo.com.
4. Recently, I was informed by my chartered accountant that order u/s 250 was available on income tax portal dated 26.12.2023 and I was advised to immediately file an appeal and hence I am now presenting my Appeal to the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai.
5. That the delay in filing the appeal is not willful or with any intention to frustrate the judicial process, but due to the genuine reasons as mentioned hereinabove that I was unaware of the impugned demand being raised.
6. That I had no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying filing of the appeal.
7. That there has been delay for which an application for condonation of delay as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is being filed.
8. Hence, delay in filing the said appeal may please be condoned.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the fact that no notice was received by the assessee on the email id provided in form 35 and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench which prevented the assessee to represent properly before Ld. CIT(A). On the
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee is at liberty to take any other or new ground of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which shall be decided by Ld. CIT(A) as per law. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
8. Before parting, I make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.