Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 121 days. The assessee contended that the delay was caused because the Secretary, who was not computer literate and had family health issues, did not receive or respond to notices sent to his email.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be plausible and sufficient. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was to be condoned due to sufficient cause, and if so, the subsequent adjudication of the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 31.10.2025 vide DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082191824(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2015-16.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal. Further ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the notices issued calling for various details as well as the show cause notice could not be addressed as these notices were sent to the e-mail of the Secretary who is over 70 years of age and is not a computer Gautham Social Cultural and Education Society, Chamarajanagara Page 3 of 4 literate. Further, the Secretary was not in office consistently as his wife was dealing with severe health issues. Consequently, the assessee was unaware of the receipt of these notices. The assessee only became aware of the assessment order when they received physical copies of the penalty notices from the department indicating that the assessment order had already been passed.
4. Having heard the ld. Counsel for the assessee and ld. D.R., it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which prevented them from filing the appeal within the prescribed period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly we are inclined to condone the delay of 121 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
5. Now having condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we are remitting the entire issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide on the merit of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.