Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance, allegedly due to a failure of the authorized representative to monitor emails and attend hearings. This dismissal led to a delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal before the ITAT. The assessee claimed eligibility for a deduction under Section 54F of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 267 days, finding merit in the assessee's contention that relevant documents were not considered by the CIT(A) due to the non-appearance. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for adjudication afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT should be condoned, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 54F, 253(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 20/03/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 26/09/2022, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, (“CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Act, insofar as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice and probabilities on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case.
2. The CIT(A) erred in law in passing order ex parte without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The appellant denies himself to liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.3,57,52,499/- as against the returned income of Rs.46,93,930/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the claim made under section 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.3,10,58,569/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the appellant is eligible to claim a deduction of Rs.3,10,58,569/- under section 54F of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee appearing before us submitted that the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by Learned CIT(A) since the Assessee had failed to make any representation. It was submitted that the default was on account of the fact that the concerned tax professional appointed by the Assessee to pursue the appeal had failed to take steps and appear before the Learned CIT(A). The email address of the said tax professional was provided in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 and therefore, the notice of hearing as well as order were received on the said email address. For the aforesaid reasons, the Assessee also got delayed knowledge of the impugned order having been passed and same resulted in a delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee further submitted that all the relevant documents and submission were filed by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer and part of the said submission/documents formed part of the Assessment Order. However, the Learned CIT(A) failed to consider the same and dismissed the appeal without examining the merits.
4. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that despite multiple opportunities having been granted, the Assessee had failed to enter appearance before the Learned CIT(A). It was submitted that notice of hearing was sent by the Learned CIT(A) on the e-mail address furnished by the Assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any default on the part of Learned CIT(A). Since no representation was made the appeal was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) after considering the material on record.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has filed affidavit in support of application seeking condonation of delay wherein, inter alia, it has been stated as under:
5. The Appellant submits that being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned AO, an appeal was preferred before the learned CIT(A). It is respectfully submitted that the email Id and the contact details provided in Form 35 pertained to the Appellant's authorized representatives. Due to certain inadvertent error/ oversight in monitoring the said email by the authorized representative of the appellant, proper and sufficient representation could not be made before the Ld CIT(A) to support the appellant's contention.
6. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2024 dismissed the appeal placing the appellant ex-parte stating that the appellant had not produced any further evidence or participated in the proceedings thereon and without perusing detailed grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant which reflects non application of mind. The notices were not received by the appellant by way of e-mail or registered post and consequently the Appellant was unaware of the same. In the Form 35, it can be seen that the email id stated is padma@gururajassociates.com.
7. The appellant states that the appellant was unaware about the dismissal of the order of the learned CIT(A) and during the course of filing of income tax returns of subsequent years, the appellant was put to knowledge about the CIT(A) order dated 20.03.2024 passed for the A.Y. 2020-21 on the income tax e-
Page 3 of 7 filing portal. The appellant requested the authorized representative to take further steps with respect to the order of the learned CIT(A) by way of filing an appeal. The appellant was assured by the authorized representative that the appeal would be filed.
Thereafter, in order to seek professional advice from a known professional, the Appellant sought for copies of the entire set of documents from the authorized representative in the month of January 2025 and it was only then the Appellant was informed that the appeal was not filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal within the stipulated period of time and only then the Appellant immediately consulted the present counsel for preparation and filing of appeal before your Honours and furnished the required details sought for by the counsel.
9. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble CIT(A ), the appellant files this appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The date of order passed by the CIT(A) was on 20.03.2024. The appellant ought to have filed appeal under section 253(3) of the Act within 60 days i.e. on or before 20.05.2024. The present appeal is filed on 11.02.2025 and the reasons for delay in filing the present appeal of about 267 days, are brought out in the following paragraphs of this Humble Petition.
10. There was a delay in filing the present appeal before the Hon 'ble Tribunal of about 267 days as the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the income tax practitioner had taken the necessary steps to challenge the order passed under section 25() of the Act by the CIT(A). The Appellant was unaware of the procedures/ status of appeal.
The Appellant, within a reasonable time, has taken all the efforts to file this present appeal challenging the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer & order passed under section 250 of the Act by the learned Commissioner of Inco e Tax (Appeals) before your Honour's.
The Appellant submits that due to his frequent travel to his native place to carry out agriculture activity and being away from place of residence, it was difficult for him to keep track of the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the appellant immediately after obtaining proper professional advice from Page 4 of 7
the present counsel, has within a reasonable time taken all the efforts to file this present appeal challenging the order of assessment passed by the learned Assessing Officer before your Honour's.
In view of the above fact the Appellant could not file the present Appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority in time and by the time the Appellant came to know that the appeal was dismissed, there was a delay of about 267 days in filing this present appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority.
It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT, Bengaluru Bench takes a lenient and compassionate view and condones the delay of about 267 days in filing the present appeal against the order of assessment passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and humbly pray this Honourable Tribunal to hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.”
We have no reasons to disbelieve above the facts as stated in the affidavit filed by the Assessee. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. 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.
We note that in the present case the Assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer had restricted Assessee’s claim for deduction of INR.3,50,58,569/- under Section 54F of the Act to INR.40,00,000/-
Page 5 of 7 and had made addition of INR.3,10,58,569/- in the hands of the Assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee had provided details of payments aggregating to INR.3,50,58,569/- made by the Assessee towards purchase of site and construction of building vide Reply Letter, dated 19/09/2022, filed in response to show cause notice, dated 15/09/2022, issued by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid reply was accompanies by bank statement. Therefore, we find some merit in the contention of the Assessee that relevant documents/submission were filed before the Assessing Officer which formed part of the assessment record and were not taken into consideration by the Learned CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal.
8. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out a case before the Learned CIT(A) for grant of deduction/exemption. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and set aside the Order, dated 20/03/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the ground raised by the Assessee in the appeal before the Leaned CIT(A) afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is directed for update the correct email address on the ITBA portal and on the records of the Learned CIT(A). The Assessee is also directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal.
It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to place on record the correct email/communication address, and/or fails to make representation/submissions in the appellate proceedings, the Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to proceed on the basis of email address/other material on record and dispose off the appeal on the basis of material forming part of the assessment record.
In terms of the above, Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while all other ground raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered academic at this stage since we have remanded the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) and therefore, dismissed.
11. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 28.11.2025.