Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) which confirmed the assessment order and dismissed the appeal for being filed late. The assessee cited a delay of 107 days due to health constraints and lack of understanding of online procedures, being dependent on their accountant. The CIT(A) had deemed the reasons for delay insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the case back for readjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 107 days and to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justified, and if the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 251(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2018-19 Sudhakara Reddy, The Deputy Commissioner of No.61/1, Reddy Street, Income Tax, Panapakkam,, Palavakkam S.O, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1), Tiruvallur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-602026 [PAN: AMZPS3937K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri S.Muralidhar, CA for Shri J.Prabhakar,CA. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1073780206(1) dated 27.02.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 147 r.w. 144 rw 144B dated 27.03.2023 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of just 107 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the assessee is a 60 year old person earning income from hiring of vehicles and that no physical copy of the assessment order was provided to him. The assessee had pleaded that he is not conversant with downloading of the orders and was totally dependent on his local accountant. The assessee had also submitted that he was having health constraints that contributed to the delay. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned reasons were deemed as insufficient for the delay in the filing of the appeal. The Ld. Counsel submitted the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR did not oppose the proposal of the assessee. 3.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse as to why it could not file its appeal in time. We have also noted
Page - 2 - of 4 that apart from merely harping on the issue of delayed filing by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 4.0 We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the case is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for readjudication after giving opportunities of being heard to the assesse and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 107 days in filing of appeal in this case. He will be at liberty to call for any remand report from the Ld. AO if warranted by the facts of the case. The assesse shall be bound to comply to all the notices and details called by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be adversely viewed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter de novo. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 5.0 Through an additional ground of appeal the assessee has raised a legal ground contesting that as per amended statutory provisions u/s 251(1) w.e.f. 01.10.2024, it was mandatory upon the Ld.CIT(A) to set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld.AO back to him for readjudication. Apropos to the decision in para 4 above, as the assessee has succeeded on merits and we have remitted the issue to the Ld.CIT(A) for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before him and fresh adjudication, this legal ground of appeal has been left open. Page - 3 - of 4. Sd/- Sd/- (यस यस धवश्वनेत्र रधव) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 11th , June-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 4 - of 4