Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A)-NFAC for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, with a 195-day delay. The assessee contended that notices for the CIT(A) hearings were not received, potentially going to spam or an old email address, leading to ex-parte dismissal of appeals which arose from best judgment assessments under Section 144.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the current appeals, acknowledging the Managing Director's personal hardships. In the interest of justice and fair play, it remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard, noting the non-receipt of hearing notices for the original appellate proceedings.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal; whether to grant a fresh opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A) where prior appeals were dismissed ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices.
Sections Cited
250, 144
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
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
These two appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against CIT(A) - NFAC orders both dated 22.03.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively.
There is a delay of 195 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reasons stated in the condonation application for belated filing of these appeals are as under:- “4. The delay in filing of the appeal is due to the following reasons: The Managing Director and shareholder of the appellant company, the undersigned, faced extraordinary personal changes during the relevant period. His father and mother were critically ill requiring constant medical care and support. The Managing Director was preoccupied being the primary caretaker for both his ailing mother and father. Tragically, his mother and father passed away on 08.03.2023 and 23.03.2024 respectively, within a span a 1.5 years. The death of his father was just one day after the date of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). ii. Due to the continues medical treatment and eventual death of his parents, the managing director was under tremendous mental agony and was occupied with funeral rituals and related responsibilities. Consequently, he was unable to adhere to the prescribed timeline for filing the appeal. ii. Further, the impunged notices issued by the ITD were sent to the official email ID of the company's former accountant, who was ceased to be associated with the organization. The new accountant was unable to access the email nor was able to retrieve or respond to the said notices. iv. Furthermore, the notices were inadvertently delivered to SPAM folders of the Authorized Representative email account. Thereby led to non-viewing of such notices and further contributed to delay. This oversight is unintentional and arouse due to company's reliance on professional advice from AR, who failed to act promptly.
On perusal of the aforesaid reason stated that parents of Managing Director expired during the relevant period, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of these appeals. Hence, we condone the delay in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the appeals on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed ex-parte qua assessee. In response to ten hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished his submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeals of the assessee were dismissed ex-parte qua assessee. 5. The ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee as the same might have been settled in spam folder. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority remained non-compliant since the hearing notices were never received in physical form. Consequently, proceedings before CIT(A) remained ex-parte. It was submitted by the Ld.AR, in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its cases before the AO, since it was a best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act. 6. The ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued ten hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had not received the hearing notices sent from the office of the CIT(A), as the same might have been settled in spam folder. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to represent its case. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore both the appeals to the files of CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the files of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.