Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with statutory notices. The assessee pleaded for condonation of delay due to being semi-literate and not conversant with online tax procedures.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of malicious intent. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for adjudication on merits, providing a final opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the matter should be remanded for adjudication on merits after ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) due to non-compliance.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Years: 2017-18 Arunachalam Kembugeshwari, Income Tax Officer, No.48-F, K.N.Palayam, Ward-1, Pattukottai, Thanjavur Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu-614 601. [PAN: AKIPK8318F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.M.K.Rangasamy, C.A., प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2025 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/250/2023-24/1058137167(1) dated 22.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 22.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 4 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 325 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is semi-literate lady and not conversant with electronic working of the tax department. It is submitted that the assessee came to know about her appeal being dismissed only when she learnt about one of her relatives tax payment notices were manually served. It was submitted the delay was neither intentional nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay save that costs be imposed for wasting the time of judicial authorities. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.
3.0 At the outset, the Ld.Counsel of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal ex-parte on account of non-compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices. It was accordingly requested that the matter be remanded to Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made a personal assurance that full compliance will now be made to all the statutory notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. DR argued Page - 2 - of 4 that the assessee is habitual defaulter qua compliance to statutory notices and that some costs be imposed before remanding the matter.
4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that he chose to dismiss the appeal on account of non-compliance to statutory notices. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of non-compliance, the Ld.CIT(A) has not given any finding on the merit of the case. Accordingly, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if a final opportunity is given to the assessee by the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to readjudicate the appeal on merits. The Ld.CIT(A) shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and any non-compliance on the part of the assessee shall be adversely viewed. We however also find favour in the arguments of the Ld. DR qua wasting the precious time of the courts. Consequently, the impugned remand back to the Ld.CIT(A) is subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.