K N GOPALA HEGGADE HUF,CHIKKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

On going through the above application for condonation, we find that the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 209 days for the reason that the assessee being kartha of the HUF, is a senior citizen aged 74 years lives in a remote area, a village near Sringeri, Chikkamagaluru Dist. and is entirely unfamiliar with computers and electronic communications, including emails and therefore the assessee was utterly unaware of the notices & order passed u/s 250 of the Act. The ld. A.R. also submitted that the delay is unintentional and no benefit can be attributed to the assessee in filing the appeal K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 9 of 13 belatedly. He thus prayed to condone the delay and requested that the issues raised by the assessee be considered on merits.

On the contrary, the ld. D.R. vehemently objected for granting the condonation of delay.

We have perused the details filed by the assessee to justify the delay and we are satisfied that there is no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly before us. It is to be noted that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it has established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflect sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing this appeal within the prescribed time.

1 While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

2 When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. As observed by Apex Court, if the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority.

3 Further, in the case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs/ ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), wherein held that “when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 11 of 13 have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay”.

4 7. Further, on going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC we take a note of the fact that, despite giving three opportunities, the assessee neither filed any written submissions nor any evidence in support of the grounds of appeal; accordingly, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and therefore constrained to concur with the AO’s finding of fact and decision thereof, more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submission/documentation during the appellate proceedings. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently K.N. Gopala Heggade HUF, Chikkmagalur Page 12 of 13 submitted that all the notices were sent on the e-mail ID, whereas the assessee in Form No.35 had specifically mentioned that the notices/communications may not be sent on e-mail. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen, 74 years old, and not a tech-savvy person. Since all the notices were sent only via e-mail, the assessee was utterly unaware of the said issuance of notices due to his inability to access emails. It is only when the tax consultant on 20.2.2025 logged into the Income Tax portal and found that the order u/s 250 of the Act was already passed on 29.6.2024. 8. Ld. D.R. on the other hand had no objection if the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Sept, 2025 (Waseem Ahmed) Accountant Member (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file