Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal beyond the limitation period with the CIT(A) due to a delay of 59 days. The delay was attributed to an issue with the company's email address, which had been deactivated, leading to non-receipt of the intimation from the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for being time-barred without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bonafide mistake and that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The expression 'sufficient cause' was construed liberally, and the delay was condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable on account of sufficient cause, considering the circumstances of email non-delivery and subsequent physical receipt of the intimation.
Sections Cited
143(1), 250, 139(9), 37 BA, 234 B, 234 C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 30.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2023-24.
1. The learned AddI/JCIT (A) 2, Noida (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT (A)") erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant merely on the ground of limitation by not exercising his powers to condone the delay when there were sufficient reasons available for delay in filing the appeal against the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax act, 1961 ("the Act").
2.The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and such delay ought to have been condoned.
3.The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the physical copy of the intimation under section 143 (1) of the Act was received via speed post on 20.03.2024 at Registered Office of the Company and appeal was filed on 10.04.2024 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of such physical copy of the intimation.
Appellant was using primary Email Address -1 as vijayd@csaindia.com and also secondary Email Address -2 as sandeepr@jmbcorpcell.com. In the event if for some reason email is not delivered at the primary email address, then it should have been emailed to the secondary email address which was not done. Primary Email Address -1-i.e. vijayd@csaindia.com was used when one of the group company Contfreight Shipping Agency India Pvt. Ltd. was in existence but when it got merged with another group company of the appellant effective from December, 2020, this email id was almost inactive and hence later on it was discontinued since November, 2023.
Appellant is a part of a group consisting of several companies / partnership firms where Income tax matters of the entire group are handled by a separate department and hence discontinuance of the email address was skipped by the tax department. As per the procedure of the Income Tax Department, there was a limitation to use a particular email-id as well as contact number for a more than specified number of assessees (say limit of 5 or 10 from time to time) and hence some additional email ids were created/ used for a limited period of time.
6. As per para 4.4 (d) of the CIT (A)'s Order dated 30.03.2025, the CIT (A) has mentioned that appellant has mentioned the date of service of Order as 12.01.2024 and hence appellant was aware of correct date of service. However, it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the appellant while filing the form 35.
7. The CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that appellant had received a physical copy of the intimation on 20.03.2024. It is possible that the Tax Department posted the physical copy of the intimation only on finding that their mail must have been returned undelivered.
8. The CIT (A) failed to consider the appellant's case on merit and dismissed the appeal by not considering request condonation of delay of just 59 days by stating that no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay.
The appellant objects to the granting of short credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by Rs. 30,41,631/- by relying on Rule 37 BA and also by not considering appellant's reply dated 07.12.2023 filed in response to the notice issued under section 139 (9) of the Act. The appellant opposes the action of the CPC, Bangalore in restricting the credit for TDS by adopting a proportionate formula based on the gross receipts appearing in the Form 26AS vis a vis the gross receipts reflecting in the income tax return under various heads. The appellant is an agent of various shipping principals where it receives freight from various parties and remits the same to its principals. Some of the parties deduct TDS under the TAN of the appellant. However the appellant is required to remit the said freight to its principal which is not the appellant's income and only offers its net commission as its income in its Profit & Loss Account.
The appellant objects to the interest levied under section 234 B amounting to Rs. 2,28,850/- and under section 234 C amounting to Rs. 1,15,569/-. This interest is arising solely on account of granting of short credit of TDS.
The appellant objects to the making of adjustment in the intimation issued under section 143 (1) of the Act without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant.
The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.
2. From the records, we noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation (i.e delay of 59 days) and consequently while dismissing the application for condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed. Now, before us, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds mentioned above.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
4. From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has mentioned reasons for non compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under:
I Shri Jehangir Adi Karanjia, Director of Ghumli Shipping Agents Private Limited of Mumbai, Parsee Indian inhabitant residing at Tata Mills Housing Society, Building No. 3, Flat No. 32, 7th floor, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 do hereby swear an oath and state as under.
At the relevant time (i.e. During the financial year 2022-23), I was and still continue to be a Director of the aforesaid company, and looking after the general administration of the company.
For the Assessment Year 2023-24, the Company had digitally filed the return of Income on 20.10.2023. As per the said return of Income, the company was entitled to a Tax deducted at sources (TDS) credit of Rs.39,54,712/- for which form 26 AS was downloaded.
However, in an intimation passed under Section 143 (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the appellant Company was not granted full credit of the TDS amount and was granted credit of ly Rs. 9,13,081/- by the Assessing Officer vide an intimation dated 12.01.2024.
The said intimation granting short credit of Rs. 30,41,631/- was passed on 12-01-2024. However, the intimation of the said intimation was mailed by the Assessing Officer at the Company's old e-mail address which was deactivated in November 2023 by the appellant Company.
The said intimation returned undelivered as appellant could not receive it, because the said e-mail address was de-activated.
Subsequently, the Income Tax Department dispatched the said intimation which was passed under section 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 by posting the same at the appellant Company's registered office and was received on 20.03.2024.
Since the said intimation was passed on 12.01.2024, the appeal against the same to the learned CIT (A) should have been filed on or before 10.02.2024. However, the actual appeal was filed on 10.04.2024 and thus there is a delay of 59 days from the date of 10.02.2024 to 10.04.2024.
It is unfortunate that the earlier intimation under section 143 (1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 sent by the Income Tax Department at the Appellant Company's old e-mail address which was deactivated.
The said mistake occurred due to inadvertence which was due to my absence from Mumbai since I was travelling frequently during that period for business in India. Moreover, my person had omitted to report to the Income Tax Department the new e- mail address. This was a bonafide mistake and the issue involved was only physical checkups of TDS amount and no complicated issues are involved. Moreover, it is submitted that the C.I.T. (A) while dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay was obliged as per the Judgement in the case of: 1) 74 ITR 41 (S.C.) in the case of CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar. 2) 359 ITR 371 (Bom.) in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. ITAT and Others. and to decide the case on merits. I therefore, humbly pray that the said default was caused not with any malafide intention but it was only an unusual lapse, since the digital process is recently started and Hon'ble finance Minister has also stated that any lapse for non-compliance should be considered liberally and therefore, the delay in filing appeal be kindly condoned and appeal be admitted and heard on merits..
5. Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.
Since we have already condoned the delay, therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.08.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 04/08/2025 KRK, PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई