Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 91 days, citing reasons of being unaware of faceless proceedings and incorrect email communications. The assessee became aware of the order only upon receiving penalty notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that there were valid reasons for the assessee's non-appearance before the lower authorities due to communication errors. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to lack of proper communication and awareness of proceedings? Whether the issue should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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 NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
At the threshold, the ld. AR before us submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT for 91 days. The assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay by stating that the assessee was subjected to faceless appellate proceedings for the first time. As such, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings how they are conducted under face less circumstances. Accordingly, the assessee could not keep a check on the IT portal. The assessee became aware of the disposal of ld. CIT(A) order on receipt of penalty notices dated 10/01/2025. Thus, the assessee immediately filed an appeal before the ITAT but in this process a delay has occurred for 91 days.
In addition to the above, the ld. AR submitted the previous 2 notices out of 4 notices were issued to the wrong email.id, which can be verified from the evidence placed on record. As such, the assessee was not aware of the latest notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Similarly, there was no service of the order of ld. CIT(A) at the email.ID of the assessee. The assessee has downloaded the order of the ld. CIT(A) form the IT portal, which was verified in connection with the penalty notice issued dated 10/01/2025. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed before us to condone the delay.
On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we note that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution in view of the fact that there was no response received from the assessee for the notices issued by him intimating the date of hearing. From the reading of the above stated facts, it is transpired that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, consequently the assessee was . unaware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), which eventually resulted in the delay for filing appeal before the ITAT. Evidently the last two notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) intimating the date at the wrong email.id. Thus, we find that there was valid reason for the assessee for non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) and consequential delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT is also justified. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the issue is restored to the AO for the reason that the order passed by the AO was u/s 144 of the Act. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes.