OM ENTERPRISE,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE ITO WARD 2, SURENDRANAGAR, SURENDRANAGAR

At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that all these appeals filed by the assessee, before this Tribunal, for Assessment Year 2018- 19, were barred by limitation before ld.CIT(A), therefore, learned CIT(A) dismissed these, all appeals, on account of delay and ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate these appeals, on merit. The assessee has moved separate petitions, for each appeal, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The sufficient cause and reasons for delay, before ld.CIT(A), in all these appeals, were similar and identical, therefore, a sample petition for condonation of delay, is reproduced below: “1. I am one of the earst-while Partners of the assessee-firm which happens to be the appellant in following four appeal filed before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT" for the sake of brevity) for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (hereinafter referred to as the "year under consideration"): ➤ ITA 919/Rjt/2025- AY 2018-19 - Quantum; ➤ ITA 920/Rjt/2025- AY 2018-19 - Penalty [S.271B]; ➤ ITA 921/Rjt/2025- AY 2018-19 - Penalty [S.271AAC]; ➤ ITA 922/Rjt/2025- AY 2018-19- Penalty [S.272A(1)(d)] 2. The assessee has filed above referred appeals before Hon'ble the ITAT against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) whereby, Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed all four appeals on the technical count of delay without entering into merits of the case despite the fact that necessary written submissions and documentary evidences were duly furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The present affidavit is being filed for the limited purpose of stating on oath the reason behind delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). I reserve my right to file other and further affidavit on merits of the case if and when required by Hon'ble ITAT at any point in time in future. 4. Reasons behind delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) are as follows: ➤ Assessee had discontinued business operations much before the passing of the assessment order. ➤ Further, the partners of the assessee were unaware of the login credentials for accessing the income tax portal. Login password was previously set by a Chartered Accountant who had become untraceable. Under such circumstances, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings as well as the final orders. ➤ The assessee came to know about the proceedings only upon receipt of notice issued to the partner under section 188A of the Act dated 24.06.2025.

Therefore, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee is one of the partners in the partnership- firm and the partnership- firm has closed its business and during the assessment proceedings, notices were served on the closed business premises, where active partners were not available. Besides, in all these appeals, most of the delay is covered by the COVID-19 pandemic, hence delay in filing these appeals, were common before the learned CIT(A), therefore, delay may be condoned in all these appeals in the interest of justice.

On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that in this case no "sufficient cause" was shown by the assessee to explain the huge/unreasonable delay in filing appeals before learned CIT(A). Rather, this is a clear case of deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the assessee. The period of delay is a factor to be considered while considering a delay condonation application, since the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. Therefore, learned DR for the revenue, contended that delay in filing these appeals, before the learned CIT(A) should not be condoned and these appeals should be dismissed on account of delay.

We have heard, both the parties on this preliminary issue. The delay in filing these appeals before the learned CIT (A) in various appeals are as follows:

Even after COVID-19 pandemic period mentioned above, the people used to work with safety standards. Learned Counsel also pointed out that business of the partnership -firm was closed and discontinued, therefore, there was no effective partner/ active partner to handle these taxation matters and only one partner, after some time, took the initiative to file the appeals before the learned CIT(A) with delay. Such partner is a senior citizen and not conversant with the taxation law. The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Marate Venkateshkumar Vs. ITO Ward 1(6) Hubli ITA No. 819/Bang/2023 where the delay of 424 days in filing was condoned where the assessee was 74 years old and not conversant with the digital systems in order to follow up with the Income tax notices which are posted on IT Portal. The finding of the Tribunal are as follows: “In the matter of condonation of delay in filing appeals beyond the limitation period, the courts are empowered to condone the delay, provided the litigant is able to demonstrate that there was sufficient cause in preferring appeal beyond the limitation period. The Courts have also held that the expression "sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Hence, the question of condonation of delay is a factual matter and the result would depend upon the facts of the case and the cause shown by the assessee for the delay. It has also been opined that generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the assesses have shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.”

The Hon'ble Gujarat HC has also considered this aspect of condonation of delay in case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (283 ITR 149) and held that...

We note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay were convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these appeals before ld.CIT(A). Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. We, accordingly, condone the delay in all these four appeals before ld.CIT(A).

Since we have condoned the delay in filing these appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and we also noted that Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate these appeals on merit. Besides, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted additional evidences before the Bench, which are to be examined by the assessing officer. That is, assessee could not submit the entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer. Now the assessee wants to submit entire documents and evidences before the assessing officer. Therefore, ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee’s appeals may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 10. The ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that if the Bench wants to remit these appeals back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication, then cost should be imposed on the assessee, as the assessee has wasted time and resources of the lower authorities.

We have heard, both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of the assessee, on account of delay, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, we note that assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, the assessee has filed additional evidences before us, therefore these additional evidences are to be examined by the Assessing Officer. On account of non-compliance of attitude of the assessee, a cost of Rs.5,000/- should be imposed on the assessee, per appeal, which is to be deposited in the Prime Minister national relief fund. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith.

Regarding penalty appeals, passed under sections 272A(1)(d), 271AA(c), and 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we note that since we have remitted back the quantum appeal of the assessee to the file of the assessing officer, therefore, these penalty appeals do not have any leg to stand, however, in fresh assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, may initiate fresh penalty in accordance with Law. It is needless to say that the assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences as deemed relevant before the assessing officer at the time of assessment, proceedings in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall, allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being, heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order which is fair and judicious.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.