Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen aged 74, filed an appeal with a delay of 404 days due to issues with their tax consultant missing the order and family members facing difficulty in engaging a new one. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's age and circumstances, and the bonafide reasons presented. Considering the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were ex-parte and not on merit, the Tribunal remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits given the ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
250, 144
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, BENGALURU BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 404 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing a petition for condonation of delay, has claimed as under:
“1. The impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A) is dated, 12-02-2024 and therefore, the time-limit to file the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is 12-04-2024. Since the appeal is being filed on 21-05-2025, there is delay of 404 days.
It is submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 74 years and not educated, as such, he is entirely dependent on family members for day-to-day activities. The family members had engaged a accountant to deal with IT proceedings. The family of the assessee was under the impression that proceedings are going on. In the month of March, 2025, the jurisdictional assessing officer started pressing for demand stating that appeal has been dismissed and no further appeal is filed so far. It was ascertained that the tax consultant had omitted to notice the passing of order. It was also ascertained that consequential penalty orders have also been passed ex parte recently in the month of March, 2025
Subsequently, the family of the assessee through friends contacted a Chartered Accountant at Hospet, who informed that further appeal Is before the Hon'ble Tribunal and has to consult tax consultants in Bengaluru who file appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal. In the said factual matrix, the assessee& his family faced lot of difficulty in identifying& engaging another tax consultant locally and in Bengaluru for filing appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal, which resulted in delay in filing the appeal.
4. It is submitted that the delay is not deliberate and the assessee does not stand to gain by deliberately delaying filing of the appeal. On the other hand, the assessee faces the prospect of irreparable injury if the delay is not condoned.
5. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to consider the following submissions:
(i) In Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst.Katiji&Ors.167 ITR 0471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle that the expression "reasonable cause" should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of substantial justice.
(ii). Non-condonation of delay has the undesirable effect of throwing out a meritorious case at the threshold, which should be avoided. It is for this reason that the Hon'ble
Court has laid down the proposition that when a prayer is made for condonation of delay, the concerned authority has to first examine whether, prima-facie, there is a case. If there is a prima-facie arguable case, condonation should not be refused. It is for this reason, the Hon'ble Court has held that ultimately the question is whether the assessee is liable according to provisions of the law or not, and a liability can't be fastened by refusing condonation of delay.
(iii). The Hon'ble Court further held:
"There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk"
6. Hence, it is respectfully prayed that the Appeals may be admitted and adjudicated on merits.”
3. The Assessee to buttress its claim qua condonation of delay has also filed duly sworn affidavit of erstwhile Counsel Shri Veerbadrappa C Gadwal, wherein the reason for delay has substantiated.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee qua condonation of delay.
Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee qua condonation of delay, such as the Assessee is an uneducated and senior citizen aged about 74 years and entirely dependent on family members for day to day activities. Family members had engaged a Chartered Accountant to deal with the IT proceedings and therefore they were under the impression that the proceedings are going on. However, in the month of March 2025, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) started pressing for demand on the ground that the appeal has been dismissed and no other appeal is filed so far. Therefore, on ascertainment, the Assessee came to know that the tax consultant has failed to notice the passing of the impugned order. It was also ascertained that consequential penalty order has also been passed as ex-parte in the month of March 2025 and therefore the family of the Assessee, contacted one Ld. Chartered Accountant at Hospet, who consulted the tax consultant in Bengaluru, and immediately filed the appeal under consideration. The contentions raised by the Assessee are supported with duly sworn affidavit of Ld. CA Mr. Veerbadrappa, as observed above. Thus, the reasons stated by the Ld. Counsel for condonation of delay prima-facie appears to be genuine, bonafide and unintentional and even otherwise the impugned order is also an ex-parte but not on merit and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay. Thus, the delay is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the assessment order is also an ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and the Ld. Commissioner has also not decided the appeal on merit but dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and in limine and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the JAO for decision afresh. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the JAO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to comply with the notices to be issued by the AO and file the relevant submissions and documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. We also clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2025.