Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 342 days, submitting a condonation petition with an affidavit and medical certificate stating she was unaware of the CIT(A) order and unwell. The revenue opposed the condonation, citing the assessee's negligence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 1000/- payable to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was justified.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 27/09/2023 in 250/2023-24/1056580063(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.
At the outset, I note that there was delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before me for 342 days. The assessee filed the condonation petition by way of furnishing the Affidavit along with the medical certificate for seeking the condonation of delay in filling the appeal. It was submitted by the assessee in the Affidavit that the assessee was not aware of passing the order by the ld. CIT(A). Besides the assessee also submitted that she was not keeping well and produced the medical certificate. As per the assessee, she came to know about passing the order by ld. CIT(A) only upon verification carried out by the AR and who further advanced to file the appeal before the ITAT with the condonation petition. However, in this process the delay of 342 days has happened due to bona-fide mistake and, therefore, the same deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed before us for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. According to the ld. DR there was also no representation by the assessee during the asst. proceedings as well as before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it is clear that the assessee had been negligent in pursuing the matter, therefore, the delay should not be condoned. The ld. DR alternatively submitted to impose the cost on the assessee for negligent approach.
I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there is significant delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and the reason for the same has only been furnished by way of Affidavit. Even in the medical certificate, the doctor advised to the assessee to rest for a month only, whereas the time limit of the appeal of the assessee expires much earlier. It is trite law that the assessee should be vigilant enough in pursuing the matter before the tax authority which is missing in the present case.
4.1 Nevertheless, the assessee has neither been heard by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, I am of the view that the matter needs to be heard on merit instead of confirming the addition on technical ground. Thus, in the interest of justice and fair play, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee subject to the nominal cost of Rs. 1000/-, which will be paid by the assessee to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. Accordingly, I condone the delay and in filling the appeal before me.
4.2 On merit of the case, I note that the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order to the assessee confirming the order of the AO, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, I am inclined to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 5th day of March, 2025