Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal belatedly by 422 days. The delay was attributed to incorrect email service of notices, disruption during the COVID period, and the death of the assessee's father, who managed tax matters.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 422 days, finding sufficient cause due to factors beyond the assessee's control. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on account of procedural irregularities and sufficient cause. Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside.
Sections Cited
271AAC, 250, 147
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:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated 07/12/2023 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023-24/1058546145(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. The appeal has been filed belatedly by 422 days and the assessee has moved a petition for condonation of delay. The order of the ld. CIT(A) was dated 07.12.2023 and as per limitation, the appeal was required to be filed by 05.02.2024. However, the assessee filed the present appeal on 02.04.2025, resulting in a delay of 422 days. The assessee has filed a duly notarized affidavit and petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons. It is explained that the assessee became aware of the impugned order only upon receipt of penalty notice under section 271AAC of the Act dated 25.03.2025. Earlier communications, including notices issued by the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), were sent to an inactive email ID and not to the email registered in Form 35. Immediately upon knowledge of the order, the appeal was filed within 10 days. The assessee has also explained that the tax matters were being managed by his father, who unfortunately passed away in January 2024 after a brief illness. This further contributed to the failure in attending and responding to notices during the relevant period.
3. The assessee submitted that six notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A), of which: 1. Two notices were issued during the COVID period, when communication channels were disrupted and delays were beyond the control of the appellant.
The first communication was merely an Enablement Communication under section 250 of the Act, informing about the availability of e-proceedings functionality on the portal. It did not constitute a statutory hearing notice or impose any obligation to appear.
Notices were also issued in August 2023 and November 2023 (two on the same date).
4. Improper service of notices – though Form 35 declared the correct email as onlinelta@gmail.com, the initial notices were .
wrongly sent to raymondvishal@gmail.com. Later notices were also not sent to the registered email.
Thus, there was procedural irregularity, depriving the assessee of opportunity to present his case, which amounts to violation of natural justice. In support, the assessee filed annexures including (a) death certificate of his father, (b) correct email ID copy as per Form 35, and (c) screenshots of the notices showing wrong email service.
In view of the above, the assessee submitted that there was no deliberate inaction or mala fide intention in filing appeal late. The delay was due to sufficient and reasonable cause. Refusal to condone will cause irreparable loss and injustice, while no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471, wherein it was held that ordinarily a litigant does not benefit by lodging an appeal late, and refusing condonation may result in dismissal of a meritorious matter at the threshold. In view of the above, the ld. AR prayed to condone the delay and set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A. The ld. AR also undertook the responsibility for making the necessary compliance on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT-A.
On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and the materials placed on record. The reasons explained by the assessee show that the delay was due to factors beyond his control. The improper service of . notices, disruption during COVID period, and death of the assessee’s father constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of law.
It is settled principle that in matters of condonation of delay, a liberal approach has to be adopted, particularly where substantial justice is at stake. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (supra) has laid down that technical considerations should not override the cause of justice and ordinarily, litigants do not stand to gain by delaying appeals. We also note that the assessee acted promptly once became aware of fact about the order having passed by the ld. CIT-A dated 25.03.2025 and filed appeal within 10 days. Considering the facts, evidences, and settled judicial principles, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 422 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. As the order of the ld. CIT- A is ex-parte, we are inclined to set aside the same to him for fresh adjudication as per law. It is needless to mentioned that the assessee shall co-operative during the proceedings and avoid unwarranted adjournments. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.