Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen and housewife, filed an appeal against an assessment order, but it was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to a 271-day delay. The assessee claimed unawareness of the order, stating she does not regularly check emails and only became aware upon tax recovery action. The Ld. CIT(A) found her explanation unconvincing and rejected the condonation application.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the delay and that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. Citing a Supreme Court precedent on 'sufficient cause', the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal *in limine* due to a delay in filing, without condoning the delay despite the assessee's explanation as a senior citizen unaware of email communications.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 27/12/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Income Tax Unit, Income-tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section Kalpana Sanjay Satpute 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 27/04/2023.
We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order exparte dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine because of delay in filing the appeal for 271 days. The explanation furnished by the assesse for filing appeal belatedly, was not found acceptable to the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, by observing as under: - “6.4. In the present case, there was a delay of 271days in filing the appeal wherein the appellant stated while filing in the appeal that the assessee is senior citizen house wife and not checked emails sent by income department. so she was not aware about the said issue, hence, the submission before the AO was also not done. The reasons brought in before me found to be unrealistic since, the appellant himself confirmed in Form-35 that the service of the impugned order was done on 27.04.2023 and the explanation is not convincing either. The delay of 271 days in filing appeal due to negligence on part of the appellant, the appellant should have approached any other tax consultant at a correct time to avoid the delay in filing. Further, no medical records were furnished substantiating the claim of appellant being bed ridden. I hold that the reasons mentioned by the appellant were not genuine and valid as no proper evidence in support of it has been adduced. The appellant needs to provide a genuine and valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. This could be due to circumstances beyond the control of appellant, such as illness and natural disasters, even for that also need to be substantiated with evidence. For the exercise of discretion in condoning the delay, it must be established beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence on its part. An application of condonation should not be acceptable unless and until the applicant satisfies the authority that he was prevented by a sufficient cause while doing so. Further, longer delays may require more compelling reasons and evidence to be condoned. The reasons mentioned by the appellant do not suffice the delay to be condoned. Thus, the delay is not condoned. In the light of above facts, I would like to draw the support from the below case laws:”
Kalpana Sanjay Satpute The Ld.CIT(A) found support from the following judicial precedents in his action:- (1) MajjiSannemma & Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi & Others – Civil Appeal No.7696 of 2021 dated 16th December, 2021 (SC) (2) Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Management Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar in Civil Appeal Nos.8183 & 8184 of 2013 dated 13.09.2013 (S.C.) (3) Vama Apparels (India) Private Ltd vs ACIT (2019) 102 taxmann.com 395 (Bombay).
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assesse is a senior citizen and house wife and had not checked emails sent by the Income-tax department. The assesse filed an affidavit duly sworn in by the assesse stating as under:- “11. Your Honours I am simple housewife and now senior citizen. I am not at all comfortable with emails and I do not check them regularly, Infect, I do not have computer. It's just because email account is required at many places it has been opened. Only when somebody calls and tells me that something has been sent on mail; which is very rare, I get that checked. Accordingly I was not even aware of the assessment proceedings and order passed. It is only when my account was attached for recovery of tax that I came to know about the order. I approached Income Tax Department for help in removing the attachment and after I explained the facts and shown them the record they were all very sympathetic and helped me a lot, even by guiding me to fie appeal before Commissioner Appeals. Not only that the Commissioner was kind enough to make request to Commissioner Appeal for early disposal of the matter so that I would be saved quickly from the trouble in which I had inadvertently landed. 12. However the said appeal was dismissed on the grounds of inevitable delay in filing that was caused because I was not even aware of the order paned against me. 13. Your Honours, I am already on the brink and cannot really sustain this huge toe demand which has arisen only due to the said circumstances. My records are all clear and dry and I only need guidance for properly presenting the simple facts. In fact, I had uploaded excel sheet showing Kalpana Sanjay Satpute entry by entry of the money received from my husband before Commissioner Appeal. I am willing to show every entry of money transferred by my husband for keeping the FDs. I just beg for fair opportunity. 14. I hereby also declare that I am revoking Letter of Authority gives in favour of Bhupendra Shah to handle the appeal in this matter and that the Letter of Authority issued in favour of CA Sahasrabudhe would be hereafter valid unless revoked.”
In our view, the assessee has duly explained the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we draw reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein it was held as follows: “6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the "State" which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on- the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to Kalpana Sanjay Satpute do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time-barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides.”
Relying on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned. The assessee has adequately explained the delay, which appears to have been occasioned by the intention to mitigate tax liability and avail of appellate remedies. However, the Ld. CIT(A) summarily dismissed the condonation application on a mere technical ground, without appreciating the factual matrix or affording proper opportunity of hearing.
We find that the assessee was denied reasonable opportunity to present his case and adduce supporting evidence in the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, so as to preserve the sanctity of the proceedings to be conducted by the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say, the assessee shall be granted reasonable opportunity of being heard during the remanded proceedings. At the same time, the assessee is expected to act diligently and cooperate fully for the expeditious disposal of the appeal.