Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and sought condonation of delay due to miscommunication and lapses by their chartered accountant. The assessee had also remained ex-parte before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principles of substantial justice over technicalities. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties, without reflecting on the merits of the dispute.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after an ex-parte order was passed?
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE BR BASKARANHON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 27.06.2024 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 2017- 18.
We notice that there is delay in filing the present appeal and for that the assessee has moved a separate application for seeking condonation of delay.
2 Escort Forging and Steel Industries, Mumbai
After having heard counsel for both the parties on this application for seeking condonation of delay, we found that there was miscommunication and lapses by the appointed chartered accountant firm. Therefore, considering factual position 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, therefore we condone the delay in filing the appeal and the present appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
3. At the outset, we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A), for which he has pleaded the same reasons for his non-appearance before Ld. CIT(A) as he pleaded in the application for seeking condonation of delay. Therefore, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, we are of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee for contesting his appeal on merits, therefore, keeping in view the above factual position, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh after providing 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 3 Escort Forging and Steel Industries, Mumbai
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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.