Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 70 days. The delay was attributed to being ill-advised to file a rectification petition and considering the VSVS 2024 scheme. The First Appellate Authority had passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal for being filed late without justified grounds.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 70 days in filing the appeal before it and also directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal before him. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and directed him to re-adjudicate the matter de novo.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Arumugam Rajalakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, New No.12, Old No.3, Corporate Ward-5(3), Zackaria Colony III Street, Chennai Cholaimedu, Chennai-600 094. [PAN: AGBPR6558F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri.G.Akash, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2025 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 / 2024-25 / 1067256074(1) dated 02.08.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2013-14. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 02.08.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 70 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse was originally ill-advised that it can challenge the order of the Ld.CIT(A) through rectification petition. The assessee was also considering opting for VSVS 2024. All these activities contributed 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. 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 and that the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of 116 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that part delay was attributable to Covid-19. 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. Counsel has advanced his personal
Page - 2 - of 4 assurance to this effect. In support of its contentions, the Ld. Counsel filed a detailed paperbook. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of lower authorities. 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 file its appeal in time. We have also noted 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. 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. We also direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay of 116 days in filing of appeal before him. 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, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 3 - of 4 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th , April-2025 at Chennai.