Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being filed late without justified grounds. The assessee attributed the delay of 39 days to an oversight by their auditor in monitoring emails, leading to missed departmental notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case and that the assessee had provided sufficient reasons for the delay. The Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and direct readjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to delay without considering the merits of the case, and whether the delay was justifiable.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Years: 2022-23 Vignesh Associates, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.56A, P.T.Rajan Road, Tax, Narimedu, Madurai, Non-Corp. Circle-1 Tamil Nadu-625002, Madurai [PAN: AAGFV0025Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066749034(1) dated 16.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2022- 23. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 16.07.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 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 14.03.2024 and that Page - 1 - of 3 the appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assesse had committed delay of just 39 days and for which it had justified grounds. It was stated that the auditor of the assessee had created an email for income tax purposes which got omitted to be monitored regularly leading to omission of departmental notices. It was pleaded that the assessee may be granted one last opportunity for defending its case and that the matter may be restored to Ld. CIT(A) for re adjudication on its merits and that it shall make full compliance to the notices of Ld. CIT(A). The issue of erroneous electronic communication were also reportedly sorted out. 3.0 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. The Ld. First Appellate Authority has not 4.0 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 39 days in Page - 2 - of 3 3 -: filing of appeal in this case. 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. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10th , January-2025 at Chennai.