BHARAT ELECTRONICS EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings is delayed by 43 days, while its appeal in penalty proceedings is delayed by 12 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit of the Executive Officer of the assessee society. As per the assessee, the e-mail ID provided in Form 35 was a common e-mail ID used for communication with various stakeholders, and on account of the high volume of e-mails, the contractual employee, who was entrusted with the work of looking after the correspondence in respect of tax matters, missed two hearing notices and the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It is further submitted that when the assessee approached the tax practitioner in the first week of January 2026 to enquire about the status of the refund for the assessment year 2025-26, the tax practitioner informed him, upon logging into the e-filing portal, that the assessee’s appeal in quantum as well as penalty proceedings have been dismissed. Accordingly, the assessee immediately approached the present counsel, who advised him to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the necessary steps were taken to file the present appeals. Thus, as per the assessee, the delay in filing the present appeals was neither intentional nor deliberate and had occurred due to circumstances beyond the assessee.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Ananth Nag vs. MST Katiji and others, reported in 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well-established that the Rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the present appeal. In view of the above and having perused the application and affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period, and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee, and we proceed to decide the appeal.

Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, in quantum proceedings, vide ex parte order due to non-compliance of hearing notices by the assessee. Now in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. On perusal of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, we find that, although the assessee responded to the initial statutory notices, it failed to respond to the final show cause notice proposing the impugned additions. Page 3 of 5

Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the assessee’s quantum appeal to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after verification/examination of the details and information as may be filed by the assessee. As the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for consideration afresh, the AO shall be at liberty to call for any other information as may be required for complete adjudication of the issue. We further direct the assessee to fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings.

Since the quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh, the consequential penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act are also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh. Accordingly, the impugned orders in the present appeals are set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore,