Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals with a significant delay ranging from 43 to 288 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not regularly checking the email/portal and not being aware of the orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessment orders were passed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay after perusing the reasons provided, finding them sufficient and not due to willful neglect. The appeals were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with a condition of paying costs.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and if the ex-parte assessment orders should be set aside and restored to the AO.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the four different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 14.02.2024, to 429/CHNY/2025 18.09.2024 & 07.10.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 & 2018-19.
There is a delay of 288 days in 74 days in & 429/CHNY/2025 in filing the appeals. The assessee has filed condonation petitions along with affidavits stating therein the reason for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated in the affidavit reads as follows:- “The petitioner submits that the order of the CITA) NFAC dated 14/02/2024 from the order u/s. 144 of the officer was posted in the ITBA portal. The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal ought to have been filed on or before 15.04.2024. Instead, the appeal is filed on 12.02.2025 resulting in a delay of 288 days. It is submitted that the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC was not to the knowledge of the assessee. It is submitted that assessee does not see the e- mail on a regular basis and so had not seen the order posted to the mailbox. The assessing officer informed the assessee about the dismissal of the appeal and the outstanding demand. Thereafter, the order posted in the portal was downloaded by the Chartered Accountant Mr.K.Rajaram on 10.01.2025 and immediately the next day, the order was sent by e-mail to the counsel in Chennai, Mr.T.Vasudevan for preparation of the appeal. The counsel drafted the appeal and sent it by e-mail on 03.02.2025. The appeal papers were signed and sent for filing on 10.02.2025. The appeals were filed by the counsel in the registry on 12.02.2025 with a delay of 288 days. The petitioner submits that the delay was neither willful nor wanton but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It is submitted that petitioner-appellant had sent the order in time for preparation of the appeal. The assessee would be put to considerable hardship and injury if the delay is not condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal for asst. year 2017-18, hear and díspose it off on merits and thus render justice”
to 429/CHNY/2025 3. On perusal of the aforesaid reasons stated, we are of the view that there is sufficient reason and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A)’s orders are ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the three notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. Further, we also note that the assessments have been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act.
The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of IMFL. He further submitted that the assessee is not well versed with e-proceedings and faceless system adopted by the Department. Hence, the assessee failed to take note of hearing notices in the ITBA portal, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. It was prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case. to 429/CHNY/2025 6. The ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeals of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A). However in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each of the case. Therefore, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- in each case to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the matter is restored to the files of the AO. The amount of Rs.5,000/- in each case shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the said payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The to 429/CHNY/2025 assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2025 at Chennai.