Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) for being filed beyond the limitation period. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the delay, citing a lack of communication from the CPC and seeking professional advice. The appeal was filed approximately 75 days late.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by liberally construing the expression 'sufficient cause', prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a sufficient cause, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned to provide substantial justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 13.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2021-22.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that appeal of the assessee was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) as the same was not filed within limitation. In order to support the contentions that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within time
I, Bhimarao Yashawant Suryawanshi, an adult Indian inhabitant, aged 77 years, son of Yanshwant Suryawanshi residing at 302, Plot No. 458, Swami Palace, Sai Section, Ambernath East- 421501 do hereby solemnly declare as under:
I say that I am the Chairman of Ajinkyatara Nagari Sahakari Pathpedi. (hereinafter referred to as Assessee).
I say that I look after the tax matters of the Assessee.
3. I say that Assessee has filed appeal no ITA 638/Mum/2025 for AY 2021-2022 against the order of NFAC dt. 13/12/2024.
I say that the Order u/s 143(1) was received on 16/11/2022.
I say that the last date to file appeal before NFAC against the above order u/s 143(1) was 16/12/2022
I say that the appeal was before NFAC on 1/3/2023 after a delay of 75 days.
7. I say that after receipt of the order u/s 143(1) dated 16/11/2022 passed by the CPC a request for rectification of the order was made to it through online portal demand rectification window on 30/11/2022, however till date no reply has been received from it. The assesse pursued a professional advice on 28th February 2023 after awaiting the reply from CPC for more than two month. The assesse was unaware that the order u/s 143(1) passed suo motto by the CPC can be appealed for, it ultimately filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT on 01st March 2023 after seeking the professional advice.
I say that the delay was unintentional and happened due to lack of communication from the CPC cell of the Income tax department A.Y. 2021-22 Ajinkyatara Nagari Sahkari PatpedhiLtd.
I say that for AY 16-17,17-18 and 18-19 where Assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) Assessee had filed appeal in time and was heard by the Ld. CIT in favour of the assesse, 10. I say that the delay in filing appeal of 75 days before NFAC was bonafide and unintentional.
I say that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my own knowledge and I am making this affidavit to bring the true facts on record.
On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
4. 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 none deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In my view the principle of advancing substantial justice is of ‘prime importance’. Hence considering the fact that the assessee has justifiably and property explained the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is being liberally construed, therefore I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) and the same is condoned keeping in view the un-rebutted contentions filed in the detailed affidavit of the assessee.
5. Since, I have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on the reasons mentioned in the A.Y. 2021-22 Ajinkyatara Nagari Sahkari PatpedhiLtd. preceding para. Therefore, in this situation the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits, needless to mention after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
6. 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 27/05/2025