Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, whose case was selected for scrutiny for AY 2015-16, faced an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 due to notices being sent to a wrong email ID and an ex-employee. The subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte. The assessee filed an appeal to the ITAT with a delay of 448 days, seeking condonation of delay, citing reliance on an ex-employee/tax practitioner and lack of awareness of the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 448 days in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 11,000/-. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a further condition that the assessee deposits Rs. 5,500/-.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal to ITAT; validity of ex-parte assessment and first appeal dismissal due to communication issues; necessity of remanding the case for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 133(6), 144, 250, 246A, 253(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
M/s Chourasia Infratech Pvt. Ltd., No.22, Chourasia Heights, 1st Cross, The Dy. Commissioner of Ashwath Nagar, Marathahalli, Income Tax, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 037. Circle - 2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN – AAFCC 5426 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Y Pranay Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT Date of hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 O R D E R PER SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15/09/2023 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. CIT(A) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2015- 16.
The assessee has filed applications by way of Affidavit seeking condonation of delay of 448 days in filing the appeal.
Page 2 of 7 3. Considered the reason stated by the assessee along with the duly sworn Affidavit, which reads as under:- “The above named Appellant most respectfully submits as follows:
1. 1. The Appellant is an private limited company engaged in the business of construction. The Appellant filed his return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.05.2016 declaring gross total income of Rs.77,48,120/-.
2. The Appellant's case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the issue for 08 selection is to verify "Cash deposit" Notice was issued to Appellant under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the wrong email id of the Appellant and subsequently, the AO passed an ex- parte order under section 144 solely based on the bank statement received in pursuant to notice under section 133(6) of the Act on 30.11.2017.-by adding an amount of Rs.27,30,000/- 3. A-grieved by the order passed by the learned AO, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal was dismissed placing the appellant ex-parte stating that the "It is safely presumed that the appellant is not interest in pursuing the appeal" and detailed grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant reflecting non application of mind. Further the Appellant was placed ex-parte as the notices of hearing was sent to the Appellant's ex-employee who used to undertake the compliance works. In the Form 35, it can be seen that the email id stated is vmurthy03@chourasiagroup.comand not that of the Appellant. Further the Phone number mentioned also does not belong to the Appellant.
4. In this regard, the Appellant wishes to humbly submit that it is the assessment order was passed on 30.11.2017 under section 144 and the date of order is considered as the date of receipt for the purpose of preferring the present appeal. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of Section 246A of the Act, the Appellant ought to have filed the statutory appeal against the impugned order passed under Section 144 of the Act dated 30.12.2017 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said impugned order i.e., on or before 30.12.2017. The appellant filed the appeal on 30.12.2017. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the fact that the appellant was not interested to pursue the appeal as no documentary evidences were produced in filing of appeal. The Appellant was not aware of the notices as the communication details mentioned in the Form 35 belonged to the employee of the Appellant who had quit the job.
5. Aggrieved by the order of Hon'ble CIT(A ), the appellant files this appeal before this go Hon'ble Tribunal. The date of order passed by the CIT(A) was on as o 15.09 2023. The appellant ought to have filed appeal under section 253(3) of the Act within 60 days i..e. on or before 14.11.2023. The present appeal is filed on 17.02.2025 and the reasons for delay in filing the present appeal of about 461 days, are brought out in the following paragraphs of this Humble Petition.
Page 3 of 7 6. The Appellant submits that the assessment order dated 30.11.2017 was received by the Appellant by way of e-mail or registered post and consequently the Appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A) before the statutory limitation period. During the course of appeal, the appellant requested the an employee of the firm to co-ordinate with the income tax practitioner to take further steps with respect to proceedings and the appellant was assured compliance of the same.
7. The Appellant was under the bonafide belief that the income tax practitioner had taken the necessary steps to challenge the assessment order by way of an appeal and would have replied to the notices. The Appellant was unaware of the procedures for the filing an appeal as the Appellant was busy with their day to day activities and had to upkeep with business.
8. The Appellant had certain TDS amounts due to be refunded for the previous years. The appellant diligently filed the income tax returns for the subsequent years within the due dates and was in hope for refund.
Thereafter, in order to seek professional advice from a known professional in relation to refund, the Appellant sought for copies of the entire set of documents from the income tax practitioner in the month of January 2025 and it was only then the Appellant was informed that the appeal filed against the assessment order dated 30/11/2017 passed under section 144 of the Act , has been dismissed placing the appellant ex-parte by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC. The Appellant also approached the ITO - Circle 2(2)(1) and requested for certified copies of the immediately on 30.01.2025 and consulted the present counsel for preparation and filing of appeal before your Honours and furnished the required details sought for by the counsel.
The Appellant within a reasonable time has taken all the efforts to file this present appeal challenging the order of assessment passed under section 144 of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer 8s order passed under section 250 of the Act by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before your Honour's.
The Appellant submits that owing to the day to day affairs of the business and short staff, the appellant immediately after obtaining proper professional advice from the present counsel, the Appellant within a reasonable time has taken all the efforts to file this present appeal challenging the order of assessment passed by the learned Assessing Officer before your Honour's.
In view of the above fact the Appellant could not file the present Appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority in time and by the time the Appellant came to know that the appeal was dismissed, there was a delay of about 464 days in filing this present appeal before this Hon'ble appellate authority.
It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT, Bengaluru Bench takes lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 464 days in filing the present appeal against the order of assessment .
Page 4 of 7 passed by the learned Assessing Officer and humbly pray your Honour to hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.
It is humbly prayed that your Honour may take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 464 days in filing this statutory appeal before your Honour and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.
It is humbly prayed that your Honour may take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of 464 days in filing this statutory appeal before your Honour and hear the same on merits for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.
It is humbly submitted that if this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the Appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury and on the other hand no hardship or injury would be caused to the Respondents if this application of condonation of delay is allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST.Katiji and Others [ 19871 167 ITR 471 and also in the case of Concord of India Ince Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507. Further the Appma1 relies on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank 8& Others [2000] 9 Supreme Court Cases 733. Further recently, the Apex Court in Mool Chandra v. UOI (2024) SCC Online SC 1878 had held that while dealing with condonation of delay petition, the cause of the delay must be examined rather than length of delay.
The Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT & Another Vs. ISRO Satellite Center, in of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28/ 10/2011 the Hon'ble High Court has condoned the delay of 5 years in filing the appeal before the learned CIT[A], the relevant observation is at para 28 page 72 of the order.
The Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Smt. ShakuntalaHegde, Legal Heir of Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. ACIT, in order dated 25/04/2006 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has condoned the delay of 1,331 days i.e. 3 Years, 8 Months and 22 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.S.P. ShanmugavelNadar (1987) 30 Taxmann 133 (Madras). The Hon'ble High Court observed that ".... Since in this case, the assessee has been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the revenue may not be right in his submission that the appeal filed under section 17 is an appeal against the original order of assessment under the Act which was passed about 20 years ago as we .
Page 5 of 7 find that the appeal is one against an order of rejection of relief by the assessing authority. Thus, though we are not inclined to agree with the Tribunal that there is no question of limitation in such cases, we are inclined to hold that the AAC is right in condoning the delay and entertaining the appeal in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue.
The Appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case M/s. Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT in dated 25.06.2018 wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal condoned the delay of 2819 days delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
The Appellant also places reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Golf View Homes Ltd (2017) 148 DTR 27 (Kar) ii) DIT Vs. Karnataka Golf Association (2014) 42 taxmann.com 57 (Kar). iii) CIT Vs. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 309 (Madras) iv) L. SOhanraj Vs. DCIT in to 135 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004 (Kar) 22. Wherefore, the above mentioned Appellant humbly pray before your Honour to kindly take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 461 days in filing the present appeal and the admit and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice.”
On the contrary, the ld. DR rebutted the claim made by the assessee by submitting that the reason stated by the assessee is neither bona-fide nor plausible and, therefore, the delay may not be condoned.
Considering the reasons stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee as observed above and duly supported by sworn Affidavit, we are inclined to condone the delay, subject to the deposit of Rs. 11,000/- to be deposited to the Revenue department under ‘other head’ within 15 days from the date of the order.
Coming to the merits of the case, we notice that the assessee’s counsel did not comply with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that the issue involved requires fresh adjudication in .
The learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under section 144 of the Act dated 27.11.2017, requiring compliance by 30.11.2017, thus granting only two days’ time. The notice was also served on the assessee on 27.11.2017 itself. It is further submitted that before the Assessing Officer, various notices had earlier been issued on 11.08.2016, 02.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 22.05.2017, and 13.06.2017. However, considering the peculiar facts and the totality of circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that the assessee deposits a sum of ₹5,500/- either under the “Other Head” with the Revenue Department or in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 15 days.
In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 14th day of August 2025