Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed challenging an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) due to the death of their chartered accountant and ignorance, leading to a delay in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The appeal was admitted for hearing on merits and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to non-appearance before the lower appellate authority, and whether to restore the matter for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
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 11.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 09.10.2023 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 2010- 11.
At the very outset, I noticed that assessee was ex- parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and in this regard Ld. AR submitted that he had engaged the services of Shri R.C Rathe, Chartered Accountant and was fully depended on the said Chartered Accountant, however Shri R.C Rathe 2 Ramesh D Jain, Mumbai expired on 18.10.2016 but the contact address and contact number on the portal was not changed therefore in the absence of any information from the chartered accountant office, notices could not be responded to and also the present appeal could not be filed earlier. Therefore seeks condonation of delay of the present appeal.
After having heard the counsels for both the parties and also keeping in view the facts mentioned by Ld. AR with regard to delay and after going through the case file and considering the submissions of the assessee and hearing the parties 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, keeping in view the above principles and the facts of the case we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.
At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order as the assessee had not complied with any of the notices and has not submitted any 3 Ramesh D Jain, Mumbai details/documents/evidences in support of his grounds of appeal.
5. Whereas Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments and relied upon the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay for his reasons of non appearance before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that because of ignorance assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A) and relied upon one local chartered accountant who had helped him in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and assured that the additions would be deleted in appeal
After having heard both the parties and after perusal of material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities and without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing.
Be that as it may, keeping in view the above preposition in mind, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the present appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing the parties. The 4 Ramesh D Jain, Mumbai assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of 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 stands allowed for statistical purposes.