Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). The initial appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was time-barred by 185 days and was dismissed due to insufficient cause for condonation. Subsequently, the appeal before the ITAT was also time-barred by 50 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the pandemic and lockdown as reasons. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the case on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and ITAT can be condoned due to pandemic-related reasons. Whether the case should be remitted to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
249(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 1D, Canal Road, 1st Floor, Room No. 101, Kolkata-700053, West Bengal [PAN:AABCU0224E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-7(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: June 26, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai dated 19th August 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The appeal is time barred by 185 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Though the assessee filed (A.Y. 2012-2013) Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and prayed to condone the delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not condone the delay on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal as well as negligent attitude on the part of the appellant.
The appeal is also time barred by 50 days before the ITAT in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the Director of the assessee-company filed a condonation petition dated 20th December, 2024 saying that the assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as the Chartered Accountant and A.R. of the assessee-company failed to check up the internet portal due to heavy work pressure of statutory compliances. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-filing of condonation petition before him in (A.Y. 2012-2013) Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act and there was no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. He further submitted that the delay occurred due to spread of pandemic of novel coronavirus and following lockdown announced by our Hon’ble Prime Minister in filing of the appeal for the period falling before COVID exempt period. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), but the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal ex-parte and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to decide the case on merit. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to (A.Y. 2012-2013) Unicorn Tradecom Pvt. Limited promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised
by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025.