Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against an ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals), incurring a delay of 852 days. The assessee submitted an affidavit claiming unawareness of the notices for hearing and the order passed by the CIT(Appeals).
Held
The ITAT condoned the 852-day delay, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether a significant delay of 852 days in filing an appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, and whether an ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(Appeals) warrants remitting the case for a fresh decision on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Appearances by: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCA, 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16th October 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudeshna Pradhan 2. The appeal is time barred by 852 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 3rd April, 2025 saying that the assessee was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 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 852 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 within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 852 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Sudeshna Pradhan
I have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. 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. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/06/2025.