Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed with a significant delay of 632 days, citing the death of her husband who managed all tax matters. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, highlighting the assessee's previous non-appearance before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the unavoidable circumstances due to the husband's demise. While noting the delay and prior non-appearance as negligent, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the death of the assessee's husband, and whether the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities should be set aside.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi and Addl/JCIT(A) vide order dated 17/02/2025 and 26/07/2023 respectively for the assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 26.07.2023. The appeal is delayed by 632 days. The assessee filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay. The reason given is the death of her husband. He was handling all tax matters. Because of his death, she could not pursue the appeal in time.
The learned AR submitted that the delay was not deliberate. It was due to unavoidable circumstances. The husband of the assessee passed away. He alone was managing the e-filing portal and tax matters. The assessee was not aware of the proceedings. She came to know later and filed the appeal. A copy of the death certificate was also filed. It was prayed that the delay be condoned in the interest of justice.
The learned DR opposed. He submitted that the delay is very long. The assessee also did not appear before the learned CIT(A) when the case was listed earlier. This shows negligence. Hence the delay should not be condoned.
We have considered the rival submissions. We note that the delay is substantial. Yet, the fact remains that the husband of the assessee passed away. He was handling tax matters. After his death, the assessee was not in a position to attend to the case. This reason cannot be ignored. We find that there was a plausible cause for the assessee’s non- appearance before the learned CIT(A).
5.1 However, it is important to note that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) when the matter was listed before the demise .
Page 3 of 4 of her husband. This shows negligent conduct of the assessee. For this, we impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the assessee to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s relief fund. However, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay. We set aside the ex-parte order of the learned CIT(A). We restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as there was also non-appearance by the assessee before him. The AO shall examine the case afresh. The assessee shall be given proper opportunity to be heard. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Coming to ITA 1385/Bang/2025 for the asst, year 2016-17
The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case discussed above, therefore, respectfully following the same, We set aside the ex-parte order of the learned CIT(A). We restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer as there was also non-appearance by the assessee before him. The AO shall examine the case afresh. The assessee shall be given proper opportunity to be heard. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 3rd day of November, 2025