Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a significant delay of 346 days. The assessee attributed the delay to lack of familiarity with electronic working and a dormant email ID. The First Appellate Authority had passed an ex-parte order confirming the assessment order due to non-compliance with statutory notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the explanation provided by the assessee and the lack of serious objections from the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and directed readjudication, emphasizing that ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) should be set aside for readjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
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: 2012-13 Kushal Educational Trust, Income Tax Officer, No.1, Chennai to Salem Main Road, Exemptions, Mellur, Kallakurichi, Ward-2, Tamil Nadu-606 201 Chennai [PAN: AAATK6359E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.G.Tarun, Advocate. 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 : 04.04.2025 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/250/2023-24/1057534526(1) dated 31.10.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2012-13. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 31.10.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 4 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 346 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that he is not conversant with the electronic working and that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) had gone to dormant email ID. Contributing to the delay which was neither willful 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. The Ld. DR however argued that cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the judicial authorities. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 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 143(3) dated 31.03.20215 and that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to statutory notices. It was pleaded that admittedly the compliance of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) was wanting. It was urged that the non-compliance was majorly attributable to Covid-19 period. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded for setting aside the case to Ld.CIT(A) and assured that Page - 2 - of 4 full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices of the Ld. CIT(A). 4.0 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 prosecute its appeal before Ld CIT(A). We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of non- compliance by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. 5.0 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. 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. We have also found sufficient force in the argument of the Ld. DR regarding wastage of time of judicial authorities by the non-compliance of the assessee. Consequently, this order is subject to payment of Rs.5000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority of Hon’ble Madras High Court within 30 days of receipt of this order.