Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's early hearing application was initially rejected by the ITAT, but the High Court restored the matter. Subsequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 46-day delay. The assessee argued the delay was due to non-receipt of communications after its email ID changed following a company merger.
Held
The ITAT found that the non-receipt of the order at the assessee's updated email ID after its merger constituted "sufficient cause" for the delay. Consequently, the 46-day delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a meaningful opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the 46-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) was justified due to the non-receipt of the order caused by a change in the assessee's email ID following a company merger, constituting "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 11.2.2025 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073113959(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) and relates to assessment year 2020-21.
A brief background of the case. In this case, the assessee has earlier filed an early hearing application before the bench. The same was rejected by the bench vide order dated 16.5.2025. Thereafter, the assessee filed writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court vide WP No.15602/2025 and inter-alia argued that the ITAT has erred in dismissing the early hearing application filed before it. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 3.6.2025 restored the matter Abbvie Healthcare India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 to the file of ITAT for reconsidering the early hearing application of the assessee and hence this case was taken up for hearing out of turn on 16.6.2025.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has not at all appreciated the fact that there was a delay of 46 days, hence it is a case of ordinate delay and hence circumstances behind the delay could have been appreciated liberally. At least ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee has applied for Direct Tax VSVS Scheme, 2024 for settling the dispute and paying the appropriate taxes.
Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we observe that the main reason behind the delay of 46 days before the ld. CIT(A) was that the assessee was not receiving the e-mails for the reason that the assessee was earlier known as “Allergan Health Care” and has filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year in the erstwhile name. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and the AO issued various notices as is mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit, for condonation of delay. All these notices were duly complied with by the assessee vide its submission starting from July, 2021 to March, 2023. Thereafter, the assessee got merged with Abbvie Group and the interface of Allergan Health Care was changed to the Abbvie domain. We further observed that the earlier e-mail ID of the assessee was “IN-Tax@allergan.com” and the same was changed somewhere after March, 2023 e-mail address Abbvie Healthcare India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 “In-tax@abbvie.com”. Ld. D.R. could not be able to refute this averment of the assessee with any cogent material. It is settled position of law that it is not the length of delay rather the cause behind the delay is to be seen. In the present case the cause behind the delay is non- service of the order at the new email id of the assessee, which fact has not been refuted by the revenue. Non service of an order would constitute “sufficient cause” unless refuted with cogent evidence. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts, and ordinate delay of 46 days, we are of the view that purpose of justice would be served if we condone the delay of 46 days and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, that ld. CIT(A) would grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2025