Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order after a delay of 436 days. The appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to respond to notices. The assessee claimed this was due to a technologically inept accountant who did not relay the notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the reasonable cause presented by the assessee regarding the accountant's failure to communicate. The ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to an accountant's negligence, and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against CIT(A)’s order vide Order No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-20/1018676174(1) dated 08.10.2019, for the Assessment Year is 2017-18.
There is a delay of 436 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of this appeal and we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 436 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to the notices issued on 27.01.2021, 30.09.2022, 08.09.2023 and 04.10.2023 for filing the written submissions or representing the case. The learned AR submitted that assessee has only received primary education and is not conversant with operating computer systems. Assessee is technologically inept and therefore had employed an accountant to update accounts on a regular basis to assist him with certain legal compliances wherever required. But the accountant did not intimate the assessee about the receipt of the notices issued by the CIT(A) and hence assessee did not file the appeal within the stipulated time. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO.
The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file the written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order and AO passed order u/s 144 of the Act for non compliance by the assessee. Assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he is technologically inept and therefore had employed an accountant to update accounts on a regular basis to assist him with certain legal compliances wherever required. But the accountant did not intimate the assessee about the receipt of the notices issued by the CIT(A) & AO and hence assessee did not file the appeal within the stipulated time.In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided one more opportunity to represent his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The assessee has to pay the cost and produce necessary evidence to the AO before taking up the case. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. In case of failure no second leniency shall be granted. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.