Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal belatedly by 450 days against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The delay was attributed to inadequate follow-up, communication issues, and oversight regarding notices issued during appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the ex-parte orders were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was sustainable.
Sections Cited
153C, 153A(1)(a)
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
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned order of even date 13/09/2023 passed by CIT(A)-53, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.153C for the A.Y.2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19.
2. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) apart from challenging the impugned orders on merits.
At the outset, the appeals filed by the assessee before this Tribunal are delayed by 450 days. In support of the condonation, assessee has filed following reasons:- “1.In the above-mentioned case, Hon'ble CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 13.09.2023. The statutory due date for filing this appeal before your Honor was 12.11.2023. However, the captioned appeal has been filed by the appellant on 04.02 2025 resulting in a delay of 450 days.
It is respectfully submitted that the delay was caused due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, as elaborated hereinbelow for your sympathetic consideration and for the condonation of the delay, so that the appeal may kindly be admitted and the justice due to the appellant is rendered 3. A Search & Seizure action was conducted in the case of Deesan Group on 17.01.2018. During the search at the business premises of M/s. Deesan Texfab Pvt. Ltd. & Others, various documents were found and seized.
After that, in accordance with the provisions of section 153C r.w.s. 153A(1)(a) of the Act, a notice u/s 153C was issued on 31.03.2021 and served upon the appellant, requiring the appellant to file the return of income for the captioned assessment year.
5. The appellant had approached Y K Chaturvedi & Co, a tax consultant, to look after the income-tax matters relating to the above proceedings. The consultant assisted the appellant in legal proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and provided support in filing corresponding appeals. Thus, when the assessment order was passed u/s 153C of the Act dated 10.05.2001, the consultant had advised to file an appeal before the Hon’ble CIT(A).
Due to inadequate follow-up and communication, the appellant was not made aware of the notices issued during the appellate proceedings, leading to the decision being passed ex-parte by the Han’ble CIT(A). Also, the appellant had not received any hearing notices and order on the mail-id "redstone@rubycotex" referred to in Form 35 debarring the appellant filing appropriate submission during the first appellate proceedings.
Recently, the appellant has appointed C B V & Associates LLP on 24.01.2025, a team of professional chartered accountants, to take care of the Income Tax affairs. During a review of the appellant's tax portal, they came across the orders passed by the Hon'ble CITIA) and immediately advised the appellant to file the present appeal to seek remedy against the same. (An affidavit of the erstwhile consultant, i.e. Yogesh Kumar Chaturvedi, Chartered Accountant and Ketki Mukesh Patel, Director of the company substantiating the above facts is attached as Annexure 1 and 2) 8. The appellant humbly submits that the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate and hence the same shall be admitted on the ground of equal and natural justice. 9. The appellant further assures this Hon'ble Tribunal of his commitment to adhere to all procedural requirements and cooperate fully in the proceedings henceforth. 10. In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to Bonafide reasons and beyond the appellant's control. Considering the bonafide mistake, it is humbly prayed that the delay caused in filing the captioned appeal may kindly be condoned 11 In this connection, the appellant places reliance upon the following decisions with the relevant findings therefrom. a Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) wherein Redstone Textile Pvt. Ltd. the treatment to condone the delay has been explained comprehensively. According to the Court the question whether to condone the delay or not was not very important,
4. In support, assessee also filed an affidavit of the Chartered Accountant Shri Yogesh Kumar Chaturvedi wherein, he has stated that the notices issued from the office of the ld. CIT (A) was missed due to inadvertent oversight and the assessee had not received any notices on the e-mail ID which was given in the Form 35. Thus, the lapse in not filing the appeal in time was purely unintentional. In view of the aforesaid reasons we find that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal in time because, on the e-mail of the assessee which was given in Form 35, no notices were issued or received by the assessee and other e-mail ID of the Chartered Accountant was missed by oversight. In the interest of substantial justice, delay is condoned. Since it is an exparte order therefore, all these appeals are remanded back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to be decided afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and assessee is also directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st April, 2025.