Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 87 days. The delay was attributed to the non-receipt of notices due to incorrect email addresses being used and a lack of awareness regarding the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the principle of natural justice. On merits, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's evidence, and thus remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and whether the assessment order was passed without considering the assessee's evidence.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI RENU JAUHRI
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 17/02/2025 passed by Ld.CIT(appeal) Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, for assessment year 2014-15.
A.Y. 2014-15 Deepak Dattaram Kadam 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is delay of 87 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed following affidavit in support of its contention:
A.Y. 2014-15 Deepak Dattaram Kadam 2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, the notices were issued to E-mail Id which did not belong to the assessee or his representative. It is submitted that the email Id that mentioned in the form 35 was a different email Id. The Ld. AR submitted that, for the above reasons the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the order was passed without considering the submissions of the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee was therefore not aware about the impugned order having passed.
2.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
It is also noted that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the present appeal 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 a 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 A.Y. 2014-15 Deepak Dattaram Kadam 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 observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee.
3.3 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 in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.
A.Y. 2014-15 Deepak Dattaram Kadam 4. On merits, it is noted that the assessee could not furnished any evidence before the Ld.AO and whatever details furnished by the assessee along with appeal was not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). It is submitted that the assessee being an agriculturist, could not collect necessary evidence at the assessment stage and therefore sought for an opportunity to file evidences in support of its claim.
4.1 We have perused the submissions advance by both sides and observed that the order passed by the authorities below is without considering evidences in support by the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. In the interest, we remit this appeal back to the files to the Ld.AO for the denovo consideration. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee in accordance with law.
4.2 The assessee is also directed to furnished all relevant evidences/documents and represent himself before the Ld.AO without default. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2025