Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) after a significant delay. The delay was attributed to an internal communication lapse where notices were sent to an employee who had left the organization, and the assessee remained unaware of the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without proper opportunity of hearing is justifiable.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):
These appeals, filed by the assessee, are directed against the separate impugned orders dated 30th September 2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising from the quantum assessments framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2015‑16 and 2016‑17. Since the issues involved are common and interconnected, both appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
& 4175/Mum/2025 C. Bhogilal West End 2. At the very outset, it is noted that the present appeals suffer from a delay of 259 days in filing. The assessee has moved a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been submitted that the assessee was unaware of the passing of the orders by the learned CIT(A), as the notices and communications were inadvertently directed to the e‑mail ID of an employee who was handling the matter. However, the said employee left the organisation prior to the closure of the income‑tax proceedings, without handing over the case papers or apprising the management about the orders passed. 2.1. Considering the facts and circumstances placed before us, we find that the reasons explained are bona fide and constitute a reasonable cause for not filing the appeals within the prescribed time limit. In the interests of substantial justice, the delay of 259 days in filing these appeals is condoned.
Upon examining the records, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has disposed of the appeals ex parte, without adjudicating the matter on merits. It is seen that the assessee had not been afforded a proper opportunity to present its case, as no effective notice of hearing was served upon the authorised representatives of the assessee due to the internal communication lapse explained above. 3.1. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it was precisely for this reason that the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings and, & 4175/Mum/2025 C. Bhogilal West End consequently, could not make an effective representation before the learned CIT(A). In view of these peculiar circumstances, and since the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without considering the contentions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that, in the interests of equity and justice, the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the learned CIT(A). 3.2. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and restore the matters back to the file of the learned CIT(A), with a direction to decide the appeals afresh after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and ensure prompt compliance with notices.
In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 26th August, 2025.