Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. There was a significant delay of 260 days in filing the present appeal due to the email address used for notices being deactivated after an employee resigned. The company was also commercially defunct and lacked in-house staff for compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to represent their case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to non-receipt of notices at a deactivated email ID of an ex-employee, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders 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 2012-13.
Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for At the very outset, we noticed that there is delay of 3. 260 days in filing present appeal and in this regard detailed affidavit for seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee, wherein it has been mentioned as under:
I, Dhanesh Kanaiyalal Goradia, son/daughter of Kanaiyalal Goradia, aged 60 years, residing at Room No. 1001, Aashutosh Neelkanth Vihar, Kurla Terminus Road, Shahid Bhagat Kenwar Ram Marg, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Vidyavihar (East), Mumbai - 400089, in my capacity as Director of Kalyani Mukand Limited, having its registered office at Bajaj Bhawan, 3rd Floor, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, Maharashtra, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: The Company was incorporated on 22nd November 1988 and has been commercially defunct since F.Y. 2015-16. The Company does not have any employees on its payroll. To manage its statutory compliances, employees from its erstwhile promoter company, viz. Mukand Limited are assigned from time to time to handle compliance related matters. The Company had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre vide Form No. 35 on 24th December 2021 (Acknowledgement No. 383451140241221). In the said appeal, the designated email address for service of notices was mentioned as "sudarshan@mukand.com", belonging to Mr. Sudarshan, an employee of Mukand Limited who was handling compliance matters for the Company.
Mr. Sudarshan resigned on 31st March 2022, and his official email ID was deactivated following standard exit procedures. All the hearing notices dated 29th March 2024, 5th May 2024, 31st May 2024, and 17th September 2024 issued by the office of the Hon'ble CIT(A) were sent to the above deactivated/obsolete email ID and therefore remained unattended. The Company first became aware of the order dated 30th September 2024 passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) only upon receipt of a notice for recovery of outstanding demand via email from "taxdemand@cpc.incometax.gov.in" dated 20th June 2025 on last updated registered mail id - "satishkpai@mukand.com". On checking the ITBA portal thereafter, it was discovered that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. I hereby confirm that delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is solely on account of the above facts and circumstances, namely: Non-receipt of hearing notices being sent to deactivated email ID of ex-employee. The Company being dormant with no in-house staff to track such communications. The employees handling compliance matters for the Company were also engaged in corporate restructuring matters of Mukand Limited and its group companies during F.Y. 2024-25, leading to further oversight. There was no deliberate or intentional delay in filing of the Appeal. 1, Dhanesh Kanaiyalal Goradia, the deponent above-named, do hereby verify that the contents are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed there from.
On the other hand Ld. DR refuted the contents contained in the application and requested for dismissal of the same.
& 5064/Mum/2025 Kalyani Mukand Ltd., Mumbai.
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us to the effect that the e-mail address for service of notice was that of an employee, who had resigned on 31.03.2022 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 we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
From the records, we noticed that the 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 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 & 5064/Mum/2025 Kalyani Mukand Ltd., Mumbai. 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). 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 Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this orderTherefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee
Before parting, we 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.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 5064/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2012-13)
As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to A.Y 2012-13 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25/11/2025