PANKAJ CHANDRAKANT SHANGHVI,VILE PARLE, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 34(3)(2), BANDRA, MUMBAI

In the instant case, it is observed that there is a delay of 26 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee has filed an appropriate application supported by a duly sworn affidavit explaining the delay. It has been stated that the Assessee, being more than 82 years of age, is not well acquainted with the use of emails and electronic communications. It has further been submitted that the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner was being handled by his erstwhile Advocate, Shri Parsham Doshi, who had furnished his own email address for correspondences. However, due to inadvertence, the said counsel failed to bring the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner to the notice of the Assessee, which ultimately resulted in the delay of 26 days in filing the present appeal. It has, therefore, been prayed that a liberal view be taken, as the delay was neither intentional nor mala fide but occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide reasons.

Having considered the application for condonation of delay, the affidavit filed by the Assessee and the reasons stated therein, we find the explanation to be reasonable, plausible and satisfactory. Accordingly, the delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the Assessee had filed the first appeal against the Assessment Order dated 28.12.2018 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the Ld. Commissioner on 28.01.2019. The appeal was initially taken up during the year 2019 by issuing two notices to the Assessee. Thereafter, it remained under consideration during the Covid-19 period in the years 2020 and 2021. Subsequently, after a gap of about two years, further notices were issued on 22.10.2023 and lastly on 10.11.2023. However, there was no compliance on behalf of the Assessee.

As noted hereinabove, the Assessee had furnished the email address of his erstwhile counsel for the purpose of correspondence. According to

It is also an undisputed fact that the Assessee is more than 82 years of age. Therefore, the explanation that he was not sufficiently conversant with electronic communication and emails appears to be genuine and deserves due consideration.

We further observe that the issues arising from the assessment order have not been adjudicated on merits by the Ld. Commissioner as in the absence of the Assessee's submissions and supporting documentary evidence, the Ld. Commissioner had no occasion to examine the issues in their proper perspective. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be restored for fresh adjudication.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of substantial justice would be served by affording one final opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner and restore the matter to his file for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after providing the Assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.

We make it clear that the Assessee shall fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings. In the event of any subsequent default or non- compliance without sufficient cause, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any further leniency, and the Ld. Commissioner shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.