Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 412 days due to non-receipt of the order from the former consultant. The delay was explained by the assessee through an affidavit.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 412 days in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable explanation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the reasons for the delay and decide the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if so, whether the matter should be restored to the lower authority for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2025 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 05.10.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
A.Y. 2013-14 Mega Venture Developers Pvt. Ltd. “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the treatment of income of Rs. 1,07,79,343/- received from amenities as "Income from House Properties" instead of "Business Income".
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the treatment of income of Rs. 1,69,88,657/- received from car parking as "Income from House Properties" instead of "Business Income".
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance for the claim for deduction of Interest amounting to Rs. 65,54.121/- and also confirming the disallowance of the expenses claimed on account of Depreciation for Rs. 73,38,364/-.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal
. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
3. At the outset, it was noticed that the appeal had been filed with a delay of 412 days. In order to explain the delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an affidavit wherein it has been stated that the appellate order u/s 250 was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 05.10.2023. However, copy of the order was not received physically. The notices for the hearing as well as the impugned order were apparently sent to the email address of the former consultant who did not inform the assessee. It was only on receipt of notice of recovery of demand on 30.12.2024 through email that the assessee came to know about the impugned order. Accordingly, the assessee filed the appeal on 22.01.2025 before the ITAT without any further delay.
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 412 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
A.Y. 2013-14 Mega Venture Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 79,60,222/- on 29.09.2013. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 25.12.2016 at total income of Rs. 1,71,49,991/-.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted that the appeal filed on 13.12.2016 was delayed as it was filed much beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of the impugned order i.e. 26.02.2016. Despite issuing several notices, the assessee did not furnish any application for condonation of delay of 230 days, and therefore, in the absence of any sufficient cause given by the assessee either in Form No. 35 or by way of application for condonation of delay, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has explained that the notices and the order of Ld. CIT(A) which were sent on the email of the former were not received by the assessee. Hence, for the same reasons as explained in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before us, no compliance could be made by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). It has further been submitted that a physical appeal had been filed on 21.04.2016 by the assessee against the order dated 26.02.2016. However, an electronic appeal was subsequently filed as required on 13.12.2016.
A.Y. 2013-14 Mega Venture Developers Pvt. Ltd.
We have considered the rival submissions. It is seen that the assessee had filed a physical appeal as early as in April 2016. However, in view of the requirement to E-file the appeals, the assessee again filed the appeal electronically on 13.12.2016. Due to the reasons explained by the assessee, no compliance with the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) to explain the delay and to make submissions on merits could be made for the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit filed before us. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) to consider the reasons for the delay, if any, in filing of appeal before him after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.