Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a co-operative society, filed a NIL return for AY 2014-15. The appellate order dated 19/11/2024 passed by the ADDL/JCIT(A) was not received by the assessee due to incorrect email IDs, resulting in a 150-day delay in filing the appeal to the Tribunal. This delay came to light after the assessee received a penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) on 21/05/2025.
Held
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, noting no mala fide intention by the assessee. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in `Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.`, the Tribunal condoned the 150-day delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT should be condoned due to non-receipt of the appellate order, and subsequently, whether the case should be remanded for decision on merits.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 80P(2)(d), 143(3), 274, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K(SMC
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 19/11/2024 passed by ADDL/JCIT(A), Mysore for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal :
“1 The orders passed by the learned lower authorities are bad in law and bad in facts.
A.Y. 2014-15 The Oriental Insurance Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. 2 The learned lower authorities have grossly erred making an addition of Rs. 10,00,771/- to the NIL returned income. Reasons assigned for the impugned addition are wrong & contrary to the settled legal position. 3 The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in making/conformiing an addition of Rs.1,17,493/- on account of amount written off as bad debts (loss by embezelment) even though the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai, SMC Bench in appellant's own case. 4 The learned lower authorities have grossly erred in rejecting /confirming the rejection, appellant's claim of deduction /exemption under section 80P (2) (d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.8,83,278/-. Reasons assigned for the impugned disallwance are wrong and contrary to the decisions in appellant's own case. 5 Having regard to the facts of the case, provisions of law and judicial propositions, impugned disallowance / additions are wholly untenable in law. 6 The appellant may please be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground on or before hearing of the appeal.” Brief facts of the case are as under:
The assessee is a co-operative society and filed its return of income on 08/10/2014, declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) was issued along with questioner. In response to the notice, the representative of the assessee appeared before the Ld. AO and filed requisite details through E-proceedings.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of about 150 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee furnished application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit in support thereof. The assessee in affidavit explained that the appellate order dated 19/11/2024 and related A.Y. 2014-15 The Oriental Insurance Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. notices were communicated to incorrect email Id i.e. sharadgrover@orientalinsurance.co.in and mumcrscty@orientalinsurance.co.in which were never received by the assessee. Scanned and reproduced is the affidavit filed by the assessee:-
A.Y. 2014-15 The Oriental Insurance Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. 2.1. From the above it is noted that, the reason that caused delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was because the circumstances beyond the control of assessee and the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passes by the office of Ld.CIT(A). Thus there was no mala fide intention or deliberate default. Since the assessee has nothing to gain by delayed filing of appeal. It is submitted that the email Id in the portal of the department is also not the same. The Ld.AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. 2.2 The assessee received a notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21/05/2025, from the Ld.AO. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken leading to filing appeal on 18/06/2025. 2.3 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before this Tribunal.
In our opinion, the assessee made out a reasonable cause for the delay that caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish anything contrary has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. Thus there is ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.1 We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji A.Y. 2014-15 The Oriental Insurance Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
1. 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 3.2 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the of 150 days delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.
On merits of the case, in the interest of justice the appeal is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of A.Y. 2014-15 The Oriental Insurance Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. hearing to the assessee. The Ld.AR requested that notice may be sent to the secondary mail Id mentioned in the portal. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidences/documents in support of its claim before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2025