Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 608 days. The delay occurred because the notice from CIT(A) was sent to an incorrect email address, which belonged to the assessee's former Chartered Accountant and was not communicated to the assessee or her current CA.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was unaware of the ex-parte order and intended to pursue the appeal. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned due to an incorrect email notice being sent by the CIT(A), and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside for deciding the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
254(1), 250, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act. PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
1. 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Ld. CIT(A) dated 22.03.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13 for assessment year (AY 2012-13).
2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld AR) of the assessee submit that while filing appeal before CIT(A), the assessee has given email address “VORAMAULIK @YAHOO.COM”. However, no notice was sent through such email. Notice under section 250 of the Act was sent by Ld. CIT(A) at different email i.e. Prajapati.ca@gamil.com. Copy of screen shot of ITBA portal is placed on record. The said email belongs to her earlier Chartered Accountant (CA), who has not informed the assessee or her present CA thus, the assessee could not make compliance in time and ultimately appeal of the assessee was dismissed 1 in ex-parte order vide order dated 22.03.2023. The assessee come to know about dismissal of appeal only on when the assessee was attempting to avail benefit of Direct Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSV-24) that appeal of assessee has already been dismissed. The assessee immediately on coming to know filed present appeal, which resulted in delay from the date of dismissal. Though, the appeal was filed immediately on coming to know that appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by ld CIT(A), yet the assessee filed her affidavit for condonation of delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. The Ld. AR. the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed is one more opportunity to contest the case on merit is allowed to the assessee. There is no intentional or deliberate delay in filing appeal, rather due to the situation beyond the control of assessee. The assessee is interested in pursuing the appeal on merit. The assessee, in fact was interested to settle the dispute in DTVSV-24. Delay in filing appeal may be condoned and the assessee be allowed to contest the grounds of appeal on merit. On merits of the case, the Ld. AR of the assessee submit that ld CIT(A) has appeal of assessee may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing order on merit.
3. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR. for the revenue submit that assessee is relying on self-revenue story about reasonable cost for condonation of delay. The assessee has not explained the delay properly thus, appeal of the assessee may not be admitted. In alternative submissions, the ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that in case, delay in filing appeal is 2 condoned, the matter may be restored to the file of ld CIT(A) for adjudication of all the grounds of appeal in accordance with law.
4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities carefully. We find that assessee has made limited prayer to condone the delay of 608 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal and to restore the file of CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. We find that for while explaining the cause of delay the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently, submitted that at the time of filing appeal before CIT(A) the assessee provided email of his son i.e. “VORAMAULIK @YAHOO.COM”. However, no notice was sent through such email. Notice under section 250 of the Act was sent by Ld. CIT(A) at different email i.e. Prajapati.ca@gamil.com. From the copy of screen shot of ITBA portal, which is placed on record, we find that notice under section 250 was sent on the e-mail, other than the e-mail provided by assessee while filing appeal. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case we find merit in the submissions of the assessee that the assessee was not aware about the passing of impugned order by ld CIT(A) and that assesses interested in pursuing his appeal. Thus, delay in filing appeal is condoned. Considering the fact that Ld. CIT(A) has not discuss the merits of the case and it is not inconsonance with provision of Section 250(6) the Act, therefore, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of appeal on merit. Needless to directed there before passing the order Ld. CIT(A) shall allowed reasonable opportunity of 3 hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance before Ld. CIT(A) and not to see adjournment without any valid reason. Further considering the facts that we are restoring the appeal back to the file of ld CIT(A), therefore, all other grounds of appeal has become academic.