Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a significant delay of 941 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a misunderstanding and lack of awareness of proceedings after engaging a consultant who failed to properly file the appeal. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a hearing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the principles of substantial justice over technicalities and the assessee's explanation for the delay. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is to be condoned, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order dated 16.11.2022 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 2017-18.
At the very outset, I noticed that there is a delay of 2. 941 days in filing 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, Dhanbir Suri, son of Singh Suri, residing at 705, Bhumiraj Meadows, Sector 19, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, 400708, Maharashtra do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
I, Shri Dhanbir Suri, hereby submit this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
That, my case was selected for Scrutiny based on the information available with the Income tax department and Id. Assessing officer had passed an assessment order making additions.
That, against the impugned order no submissions were made as I was unaware of any such proceeding initiated against me. 4. That, I had engaged a consultant to file an appeal against the assessment order passed by the Id. Assessing officer. The appeal was filed by the consultant, however, the Id. CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay and rejected the appeal without even hearing my case. 5. That, I was unaware of any such hearing notice issued or matter being disposed off by the CIT (Appeals), due to which this delay was caused. 6. I was under the bona fide belief, that the appeal had been duly filed and that the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and no order had yet been passed. 7. It was only upon receipt of recovery related communications from the Department that I consulted my Chartered Accountant, who informed me that an appellate order had already been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and no appeal had been filed against the assessment order. 8. That, I humbly request the Honourable Tribunal to consider this affidavit as a representation of the bona fide reasons for the delay. 9. That, I affirm that this affidavit is being submitted solely for the purpose of the appeal proceedings of the Dhanbir Suri before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). I solemnly affirm that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by the 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 subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/- imposed upon the assessee. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, I also noticed that the appeal of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the Dhanbir Suri,. Mumbai. application for seeking condonation of delay and further the assessee was ex-parte before AO. In this regard Ld. AR explained the circumstances before the bench because of which the assessee was prevented to represent properly before the revenue authorities. On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause, because of which assessee could not put effective representation before the revenue authorities. The Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the same afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on unnecessary ground and shall remain co-operative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.