Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 44 days. The assessee claimed to have not received hearing notices from the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) and was unaware of the order until informed by the income-tax office.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the belated filing. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, provided the delay is condoned by the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) can be condoned due to non-receipt of hearing notices, and if so, should the appeal be decided on merits?
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 22.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
There is a delay of 44 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated for late filing of the appeal is that the assessee has never received any hearing notices from Office of First Appellate Authority and was not aware of the impugned order. It is stated that the assessee came to know of impugned order being passed only on 05.12.2024 when she was informed by the jurisdictional income-tax office demanding tax liability against assessment.
On perusal of the aforesaid reasons in the condonation application, we are of the view that there is reasonable cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.
We find that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal in limine, as time barred without condoning delay in filing the appeal.
The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that assessee was never in receipt of hearing notices issued from Office of the CIT(A). Hence, the assessee could not explain reasons for belated filing of appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to explain reasons for delay in filing before CIT(A).
The Ld.DR supported orders of AO and CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had represented her case before the AO. It is the claim of Ld.AR that assessee was never in receipt of hearing notices sent through e-mail ID. It is stated by the Ld.AR that assessee is an agriculturist and not a computer literate and do not view the e- mails. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to various notices issued from the Office of the First Appellate Authority. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to explain reasons for belated filing of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this appeal is restored to the files of CIT(A). The assessee is directed to file a petition for condonation of delay and a supporting affidavit stating reasons for belated filing the appeal before CIT(A). Needless to say, in the event CIT(A) condones delay, he shall adjudicate the matter on merits. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2025. (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (जॉज" जॉज" के) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपा"य" /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated, the 28th February, 2025 DS