Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 397 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving notices, which were allegedly sent to a spam folder and handled by an accountant. The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication in the interest of justice and equity.
Key Issues
Whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
These two appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi both dated 31.10.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16 and 2016-17.
There is a delay of 397 days in filing both the appeals. The assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reason stated in the condonation application for belated filing of these appeals is that the assessee firm to 299/Chny/2025 appealed against the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC through the previous AR and the notices issued were not known to the assessee as appeals for 4 years were filed by it in this course of period. Out of the 4 appeals, still 2 appeals are pending. The appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi was dismissed in limine for non-compliance since the firm did not receive any notices during the first appellate proceedings, though served on to the email ID in my name for registration. Therefore, the notices regarding the appellate proceedings were though served on the ITBA, the assessee was not put to notice about the proceedings before the first appellate authorities. The first appellate proceedings were completed in limine on 30.10.2023, was not known to the assessee as the assessee has no knowledge about checking the emails, as it was handled by the Accountant and erstwhile AR and hence there was delay in filing both the appeals.
On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation applications, we are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing both the appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order for both the assessment years under consideration. The reason for to 299/Chny/2025 deciding the appeal ex-parte was that the assessee did not reply to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). The ld.AR submitted that the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18 are pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication. He further submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A).
The ld. DR supported the orders of CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued various notices directing the assessee to file certain details/documents. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders. It is the claim of the assessee that the notices issued through e-mail have been missed inadvertently since it was received in spam folder. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to various notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly, the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. to 299/Chny/2025
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2025.