Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 96-day delay. The assessee, a housewife, cited reasons like not operating her email regularly for the delay in receiving the assessment order and notice. The CIT(A) found the cause for delay insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 96-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the delay was not intentional and was due to genuine reasons, applying the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and deserved condonation based on principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A, 249(2), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 28/08/2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. for the Asst. Year 2015-16
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14/11/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The assessment order dated 18/03/2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 61,42,000/- by making additions under Section 69A as unexplained money.
The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which was delayed by 96 days beyond the prescribed time limit under section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee before the ld. CIT-A explained the delay by contending that she is a housewife and was not regularly operating her email account, which resulted in the delayed notice of the assessment order and subsequent appeal. Upon becoming aware of the assessment proceedings and demand notice, the assessee approached her tax consultant and prepared the necessary documents for appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, wilful, or deliberate but due to genuine and bona fide reasons beyond her control. However, the ld. CIT-A dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the assessee failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. authorized representative (AR) reiterated the arguments previously made before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and additionally agreed to comply with the proceedings before the ld. .
CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. AR requested that the issue be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on legal provisions.
On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative (DR) did not raise any major objections to referring the matter back to the ld. CIT-A for a fresh decision as per legal requirements.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)] has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The principle of natural justice demands that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present her case, particularly when the delay is not intentional and the assessee has presented a reasonable cause. It is a settled legal position that substantive rights should not be defeated on technical grounds, and a liberal approach should be adopted in cases of condonation of delay where a genuine cause exists.
8.1 In light of the principles of natural justice and judicial precedents, we hold that the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limine is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with the law. The learned CIT(A) is directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee before deciding the appeal on merits. It is also directed to the assessee to make necessary . compliance during the appellate proceedings and should not seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) is condoned. The matter is remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Thus, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. for the AY 2015-16
Since the main issue in has been sent back to the learned CIT-A for reconsideration in accordance with the law, we are also inclined to refer the issues in the present appeals to the learned CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per legal provisions. Therefore, the assessee's grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
As a result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.