Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed to be unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to their accountant's email, which was overlooked.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was admitted, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SMT. RENU JAUHRI
Date of Hearing 25.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2010-11. 2 Balwas Charitable Trust, Mumbai
At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay in filing the present appeal. In this regard Ld. AR drawn our attention towards affidavit filed by the assessee, thereby seeking condonation of delay and the contents of which were reproduced here in below:
7. The appellant state that only after receiving "Recovery Notice for Outstanding Demand" from Ld. A.O dated 28-01-2025, the appellant has become aware that Ld. CIT(Appeal) has already passed ex-parte order u/s 250 of the Act against appellant vide its Order dt 30-05-2024 since no reply was filed received from the assessee. The appellant is shocked and surprise to know about the above Ld. CIT(Appeal) Order due to which huge demand has been raised.
8 The appellant pleads that all the notices issued by Ld. CIT(Appeal) was sent on e- mail id of accountant who is employee of the assessee. The accountant due to oversight and mistake have not checked on email the notice issued by Ld. CIT(Appeal). Thus the appellant was totally unaware of the all notices issued by learned CIT(Appeal) due to which the appellant was not able to file against CIT(A)
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 our view the principle of advancing substantial justice is of ‘prime importance’. Hence 3 Balwas Charitable Trust, Mumbai considering the fact that the assessee has justifiably and property explained the delay which occurred in filing the appeal the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is being liberally construed, therefore we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the present and order. Accordingly, now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
After hearing the parties on the main appeal and after going through the records, we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) and did not file any submissions, Therefore taking a lenient view after considering the above factual and legal position, we are of the firm opinion that the ends of justice would be met only by restoring the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
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. 4 Balwas Charitable Trust, Mumbai
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.