Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 394 days. The assessee's delay was due to not receiving the order, technical issues with the mail, and understanding how to proceed. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on technical grounds.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that substantial justice is of prime importance and the explanation for the delay was justifiable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 80(P)(2)(d)
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, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 28.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 30.11.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2021-21.
2. From the records, I noticed that there is a delay of 394 days in filing the present appeal and in this regard it is submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the Income Tax Website but the assessee society did not 2 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai receive any physical copy of the same. Even from the perusal of the mail box, it appears that assessee society did not receive the same in mail box which may be on account of technical issue. It was further submitted that on 26.10.2024 assessee society came to know about the adjustment of refund for A.Y 2024-25 therefore after visiting the Income Tax Website it was noticed that the CIT(A) had already passed the order against the assessee society. In this regard a screen shot of the portal evidencing the said fact has been placed on record. In order to further justify the reasonable cause for such a long delay, it was submitted that the assessee approached different consultants to understand as to how the matter may be proceeded further. Only thereafter the appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The detailed reasoning in this regard has also been mentioned in the accompanying application for seeking condonation of delay. 4. Apart from this, Ld. AR also submitted that the main issue contained in this appeal is challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in denial of claim of Sec. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act which otherwise is a covered issue by the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT and in this regard assessee has referred the following cases:
Aqua Co-op Housing Society Ltd Vs. ITO, 408/Mum/2015.
ACIT Vs. The Jawahar Nagar Co-op Housing Society Ltd, 6252 & 6253/Mum/2016. 3. Mhatre Palace CHSL, 6394/Mum/2024 3 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai
Navodaya Education Trust, Vs. DCIT, [2021] 130 taxmann.com 256 (Bangalore -Trib) 5. On the other hand Ld. DR contested the application for seeking condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has no sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay. 6. After having hard both the parties and considering the explanation put forth before me and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs MST Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353 Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that were 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 and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Therefore I condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
After having gone through the facts of the present case I noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical ground and has not adjudicated the same on merits.
4 Shree Saptashree Greeshma Residency -1, CHS, Mumbai
Be that as it may, by taking into consideration the decisions relying upon by the assessee and without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, Bench is of the view that matter be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues afresh on merits by considering the cases relied upon by the assessee of Coordinate Benches of ITAT and by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, I 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. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.