Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 54 days. The assessee attributed the delay to circumstances beyond their control, including inadequate follow-up by a previous consultant, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). A new consultant advised filing the present appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 54 days, finding that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause and that the delay was not attributable to them. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) has decided the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
69A, 143(3), 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 26/08/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2020-21.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 4 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has furnished an application in support of the delay “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL
In the above-mentioned case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC had passed an order on 26.08.2024. The statutory due date for filing this appeal before your Honour was 25.10.2024. However, the captioned appeal has been filed by the appellant on 18.12.2024 resulting in a delay of 54 days.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the delay was caused due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, as elaborated hereinbelow for your sympathetic consideration and for the coffdonation of the delay, so that the appeal may kindly be admitted and the justice due to the appellant is rendered.
3. The learned Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The learned CIT(A), NFAC vide order u/s 250 of the Act dated 26.08.2024 upheld the addition in this respect.
4. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.09.2022, during that period the Appellant had approached an Independent consultant to look after his income-tax matters. The consultant appointed at that time had advised to file appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A) against the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and accordingly appeal was been filed before the Hon'ble CIT(A) on 14.10.2022 duly within the time limit of 30 days as allowed under the provisions of the Act. However, due to inadequate follow-up and communication by the consultant, the appellant was not made aware of the notices issued during the appellate proceedings, leading to the decision being passed ex-parte by the Hon'ble CIT(A).
A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar 5. Recently, the appellant has appointed a new professional chartered accountant to take care of the Income tax affairs. During a review of the appellant's tax portal, the chartered accountant came across the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and immediately advised the appellant to file the present appeal to seek remedy against the same.
6. The appellant humbly submits that the delay of 54 days in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but arose due to circumstances beyond his control and hence the same shall be admitted on the ground of equal and natural justice.
The appellant further assures this Hon'ble Tribunal of his commitment to adhere to all procedural requirements and cooperate fully in the proceedings henceforth.
An affidavit in support of the above facts is enclosed herewith as Annexure 1.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to Bonafide reasons and beyond the appellant's control. Considering the bonafide mistake, it is humbly prayed that the delay caused in filing the captioned appeal may kindly be condoned.
In this connection, the appellant places reliance upon the following decisions with the relevant findings therefrom:
a. Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji and Others (167 ITR 471) wherein the treatment to condone the delay has been explained comprehensively. According to the Court the question whether to condone the delay or not was not very important, what was more significant is justice-oriented approach has to be adopted while dealing in condoning the delay. The Hon'ble Court adopted very liberal approach stating that refusing to condone delay would be decided on merits after hearing parties. Otherwise, the faith on "Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
In view of the facts and circumstances explained above and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is humbly prayed that the delay of 54 days occurred in filing the captioned appeal may kindly be condoned in the interests of justice and equity, and it may be decided on merits and in accordance with law. It is submitted that by acceding to this humble request, the revenue is not going to be prejudiced but, on the other hand, the appellant would be put to grave harm and injury.
And for this act of kindness, the applicant shall ever remain grateful to Your Honours.”
2.1. The reason that caused delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal was because the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passes by the office of Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR submitted that immediately the assessee approached the present AR and an appeal was filed before this Tribunal. He prayed that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that, the notices forwarded by assessee to the then tax consultant was being taken cognizance of by the erstwhile tax consultant. He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned as there is no malafide mistake / intention that could be attributable on the assessee in causing the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.
A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar 2.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the condonation of delay was of the opinion that the issue should be decided on merits. I have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before this Tribunal.
In my opinion, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any such intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. There is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.
Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the of 54 days delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal.
On merits it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a detailed order on merits as no representations were made by the assessee representative before the first appellate authority. In the interest of justice I remit the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue on merits. Assessee is directed to furnish all necessary evidence in support of its scheme which shall stand verified in accordance with law.
Needless to say that proper opportunity of being out must be granted to say.
A.Y. 2020-21 Rajendra Kamalakant Chodankar Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/02/2025