Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 96 days due to an issue with their registered email ID on the Income Tax Portal. The delay was attributed to an erstwhile employee's resignation and lack of access to the email. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 47,73,760/- on account of non-allowing a claimed benefit.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 96 days, finding the reasons plausible. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices and lack of submissions before the Commissioner, the case was remanded for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to pay costs and comply with future notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the case should be remanded due to the assessee's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 10(23c), 13(10)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.02.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2023-24.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee in support of its claim qua condonation of delay of 96 days, has claimed as under:
“1. Dr Neerja A Gupta, Director and Chairman of GU PIER Foundation, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under that I M/s. Gu-Pier Foundation am the Director and Chairperson of the appellant and am duly authorised to swear this affidavit on behalf of the appellant. That there is a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the said delay occurred solely for the reason that the registered e-mail ID on the Income Tax Portal was of an erstwhile employee named Pranav Shah, who had resigned in the year 2022. Consequently, the appellant was not able to receive the communications and intimations sent by the Income Tax Department on the said e-mail ID as the appellant did not have access to the said resigned employee's e-mail ID and immediately on becoming aware of the issue, the appellant filed the appeal at the earliest opportunity. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The above declaration is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.”
The aforesaid reasons/contentions are supported by duly shown affidavit, appears to be reasonable, plausible and bonafide and therefore the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.
Coming to the merit of the case, it is observed that the Ld. Commissioner before deciding the appeal filed against the assessment order dt.29.10.2024 u/s 143(1) of the Act, whereby addition of Rs.47,73,760/- has been made on account of non- allowing the benefit claimed u/s 10(23c) or section 13(10) of the Act, sent 6 notices, however the Assessee made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/document. During the hearing of this appeal also, the Assessee is unable to demonstrate the reason as to why the Assessee made no compliance and therefore, the Assessee deserves no leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as in the absence of relevant submissions and documents, the issue also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice and considering the conduct of Assessee, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.
The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.09.2025.