Loading judgment…
Facts
Three appeals were filed late by different assessees against an order passed by the NFAC. The common reason for the delay was that the assessees came to know about the impugned orders only when verifying the income-tax portal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in all three appeals, noting that while the explanation for the delay was weak, justice should not be denied on technical grounds. The Tribunal further held that the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] passed ex-parte orders without proper opportunity to the assessees and without complying with Section 250(6) of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing appeals when the reason provided is weak but denial would cause hardship, and whether the AO and CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
250(6)
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, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These three appeals are filed by different assessees against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 23/09/2023, 31/01/2024 and 09/10/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18.
The common reason given by all the assessees for the delay in filing the appeals is that they came to know about the impugned orders only when verifying the income-tax portal. The condonation petitions were filed by all the assessees with the affidavit.
On perusal of the condonation petition, we note that the explanation is weak. The assessees should have been more vigilant in tracking their cases. Mere ignorance or casual approach is not a good ground. However, the law on condonation of delay is settled. Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals have repeatedly held that justice should not be denied for technical reasons. If there is some cause, though not very strong, delay can be condoned if refusal will cause greater hardship.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471) has laid down guiding principles. It held that when . substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed, cause of substantial justice should be preferred. It also held that there is no presumption that delay is deliberate or mala fide. Following the above principle, we find that the assessees will suffer if their appeals are dismissed only on limitation. Dismissal will deprive them of a chance to contest the additions on merits. On the other hand, condonation only results in the matters being heard on merits, which causes no prejudice to the Revenue. However, the Departmental Representative opposed condonation.
We have considered his objection. Still, in the interest of justice, we hold that delay deserves to be condoned. We therefore condone the delay in all three appeals. Appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. On merits, we note that the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] were passed ex- parte to the assessees.
6.1 The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from attending the proceedings. He prayed that one more opportunity may be granted, and assured that the assessees will appear and file necessary details before the AO.
On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the request and supported the orders of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions. We notice that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders without following the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. The section requires the ld. CIT(A) to state points for . determination, decision thereon, and reasons for the decision. This has not been complied with.
8.1 Further, both the AO and the ld. CIT(A) decided the matters ex- parte. All the assessees did not get proper opportunity of being heard. Principles of natural justice have been violated. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the matters should go back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall give adequate opportunity to all the assessees. All the assessees are directed to cooperate and file necessary evidence and explanations and avoid unwarranted adjournments. The impugned orders are set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Hence, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.