Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 225 days. The assessee's representative explained that the delay was due to the inadvertent missing of hearing notices and the appellate order sent to the assessee's email, which they only became aware of when a show-cause notice was received.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 225 days. Considering the interest of natural justice and to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to inadvertent technical reasons, and if the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143, 144B, 271(1)(c), 50
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 16.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 18.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in calculating a profit of Rs.672,34,498/- from the project as at 31/03/2018 by erroneously considering A.Y. 2018-19 Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. the cost of construction as Rs.36,70,22,237/- instead of Rs.44,32,01,883/-and Percentage of completion as 62.57% instead of 51.80%. 2 BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in erroneously treating the entire revenue of Rs.36,71,91,655/- from the project as Appellant's share instead of taking 50% as per the Development Agreement with the Land Owner.
3. Without prejudice to above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in assessing the income for the year at Rs.3,60,78,135 (Rs.672,34,498 less Rs.3,11,56,363) purely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions of facts as well as law.
4. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in considering profit on sale of depreciable asset of Rs.7.74.478/- as income of the assessee whereas the surplus is already considered in block of assets while calculating depreciation u/s. 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing an order in sub silentio without dealing with either the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant or the statement of facts which remained unrebutted.”
3. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 225 days. In order to explain the delay, the assessee has submitted an affidavit stating that the appellate order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 18.03.2024. However, a physical copy of the order was not received by the assessee. The notices for the hearing, as well as the impugned order, were sent to the email addresses of the appellant's office, viz. lakhanibuilders@gmail.com and lakhanibuilders735@gmail.com, which were inadvertently missed by the assessee. It was only when the assessee's accountant received a show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 05.12.2024 that the assessee became aware of the appellate order. Subsequently, the assessee consulted its tax consultant, who advised the filing of appeal as expeditiously as possible along with a petition for condonation of delay.
A.Y. 2018-19 Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. 4. In view of the facts narrated in the affidavit of the assessee, we find that there was a reasonable explanation given for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 225 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring an income of Rs. 2,93,93,870/- on 26.10.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny, and the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) issued various notices to the assessee. However, due to lack of compliance from the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 143 r.w.s. 144B of the of the Act on 23.09.2021, determining the total income to be Rs. 6,62,46,483/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) also issued several notices to the assessee, but no response was received. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order dismissing the assessee's appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal belatedly before this Tribunal. Before us, the Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that the notices and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to the official email address of the assessee and were inadvertently missed. The Ld. AR argued that, for the same reasons detailed in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay in the present appeal, the assessee could not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. AR A.Y. 2018-19 Lakhani Builders Pvt. Ltd. requested that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) has not objected to the proposition put forth by the Ld. AR.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. In the interest of natural justice and to afford the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on its merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is hereby directed to provide the assessee with due opportunity to present its case. The assessee is also directed to provide the correct and active email address to the Ld. CIT(A) and to ensure complete and timely compliance with all requirements before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2025.