Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against orders passed by the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19. There was a significant delay in filing the appeals, attributed to the assessee engaging a new tax consultant and an oversight in checking hearing notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard, as the initial appeal was disposed of without adequate opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3)
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, “D” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R PER BENCH: These five appeals filed by assessee are against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai, vide order nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1054551456(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1054551233(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1054551005(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1054551330(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1054551582(1) dated 24.07.2023, passed against the assessment orders by Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai, u/s. 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 27.05.2021 for Assessment Year 2014- 15 and dated 10.05.2021, for Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2018-19.
All these five appeals filed by the assessee have identical grounds with variation in the quantum of addition made and therefore taken up together by passing a consolidated order. It is important to note that the order of ld. CIT(A) is also a consolidate order pertaining to appeals for Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2018-19, i.e., all the five appeals in the present case. As done by the ld. CIT(A), we also take appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 as the lead year to draw the facts and our observations and findings shall apply mutatis mutandis to all other appeals.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 504 days in filing these appeals. Registry has noted a delay of 130 days for which ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out the miscalculation emanating from an error, while noting the date of order passed by ld. CIT(A) in Form- 36. The correct date of order for computing the limitation is to be taken as 24.07.2023 and not 24.07.2024. Assessee has placed on record application for condonation of delay alongwith affidavit. To explain the delay caused, assessee submitted that it had engaged a tax consultant. On account of inadvertent oversight by the staff of the tax consultant, the notices fixing the hearing could not be checked. Further, it is submitted that assessee did not receive notices as well as the impugned order on the mail ID rajratan@rubycotex.in as mentioned in Form-35 which led to non attending of hearing notices and receipt of the impugned order. To explain this an affidavit from the tax consultant is placed on record. Further to this, an affidavit from the Director of the assessee is also placed on record containing the averments made by the tax consultant and also stating that assessee did not receive hearing notices and the impugned order on the email ID mentioned in Form-35.
Assessee engaged another tax consultant, who took up the matter of filing the matter before the Tribunal along with petition for condonation of delay and affidavit. It is stated that delay in filing the appeal is due to bonafide reasons and beyond the control of the assessee. Assessee thus, explained that there exists sufficient cause for condoning the delay and taking up the matter for adjudication. We are of the considered opinion that a liberal approach should be taken in condoning delays, so as not to obstruct merits of the case and substantial justice. For this, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 167 ITR 471. Accordingly, delay in all the five appeals in filing the same before the Tribunal is condoned, to take up the matter for adjudication.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that assessee did not get adequate opportunity to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the claim made by it. The appeal has been disposed of in absence of submissions made but by merely taking into account statement of facts and assessment order from record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for another opportunity before the ld. CIT(A) by giving an assurance that all the necessary compliances shall be made diligently for an effective disposal if such an opportunity is granted. In this respect, we perused the impugned assessment order and noted that assessee had made submissions before the ld. Assessing Officer, fact of which is noted in para 3.2. Considering the overall factual matrix as discussed above, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the assessee by restoring the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the grounds raised on the first appellate stage. Needless to say, that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in attending the hearing notices and avoid taking adjournments unless warranted by compelling reasons. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Since identical fact and circumstances exists in all other four appeals, they are also restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) in terms of our above stated observation and direction. These four appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 28 April, 2025