Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 160 days due to the order being delivered to their old address after a change of residence. The assessee is a driver and claimed personal difficulties led to the address change and non-receipt of the order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee, being a driver, may not have been well-versed with the Act's provisions. The case was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's circumstances and if the matter should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
271E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 18/11/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1070423974(1) for the assessment year 2013-14.
In the present case, the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 160 days before the learned CIT(A). It was explained by the assessee to the learned CIT(A) that the order passed under section 271E of the Act was delivered to his old address. As per the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal was due to change of address, and precisely for this reason, the order passed by the AO under section 271E of the Act was not received by him. Consequently, the delay of 160 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) occurred.
The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee is a non- qualified person working as a driver. Due to personal difficulties, he had to change his address. However, the order was delivered to the old address. As such, according to the learned AR, there were compelling circumstances that caused the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay should be condoned.
On the other hand, the learned DR did not oppose the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and agreed that the matter could be set aside to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.
We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the demand was raised by the revenue in the order passed under section 271E of the Act, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The assessee stands to gain no benefit from not complying with the provisions of law by taking remedial steps provided under the law. As such, the demand raised by the revenue shall remain intact unless demand is paid or relief is granted which is possible upon filing an appeal to a higher forum. Moreover, no mala fides can be attributed to the assessee for not complying with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
5.1 Furthermore, since the assessee is a driver, it can be reasonably assumed that he was not well-versed with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in the present case deserves to be condoned, and the matter should be decided on its merits. Therefore, we condone the delay in the appeal filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the case in accordance with the provisions of law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 25th day of June, 2025