Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed an appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A). There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to mismanagement by their tax consultant. The assessee's tax consultant mistakenly refiled an appeal, leading to confusion about the status of the original appeal and the timelines.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities in cases of non-deliberate delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's consultant's errors, and whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order 08.09.2022 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 2013- 14.
At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay in filing the appeal before us and in this regard assessee relied upon applications for seeking condonation of delay has mentioned as under:
2 Sheetal Nilesh Mhatre, Mumbai
The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to a lack of proper communication and mismanagement by my tax consultant. Although he filed the original appeal against the assessment order dated 08/09/2021 on 09/10/2021, he mistakenly refiled another appeal for the same matter on 19/06/2022. On 08/09/2022, he informed me of an order passed but indicated it pertained only to the mistakenly filed appeal, leading me to believe that the original appeal was still pending adjudication. It was only upon my recent inquiry that I discovered an order for the original appeal had also been passed on 08/09/2022 by NFAC, Delhi. This critical information was not communicated to me earlier, resulting in my unawareness of the timelines and causing the delay in filing the subsequent appeal.
4. I came to know that order against the first appeal was also passed on 08/09/2022. Immediately, I approach another Chartered Accountant who suggested me to file the appeal before the Hon'ble CIT- Appeal against the order of NFAC, Delhi. Thereafter and accordingly, I have filed the without any further delay.
3. On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the contentions raised by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay.
After having heard the counsel for both the parties on the request for seeking condonation of delay, I found that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that she had “sufficient cause” for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated period, therefore considering the factual position in this case and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., 3 Sheetal Nilesh Mhatre, Mumbai [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, therefore we condone the delay in filing the appeal and the present appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex- party before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has explained the same reasons for not appearing before Ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the appeal for seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met, in case the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication 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, I 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 Sheetal Nilesh Mhatre, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.