Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, which were found to be barred by limitation. The assessee sought condonation of delay, explaining that their consultant was unable to attend to matters due to illness, resulting in an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO, directing a fresh assessment after granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned? Whether the reopening proceedings u/s 147 were bad in law? Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order and whether the addition made by the AO was sustainable?
Sections Cited
250, 147, 151, 10(26AAA), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order : March 26th, 2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)']-NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 dated 14.03.2024. Since both the appeals were heard together and the issues 1.1. The Registry has informed that both the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation by 192 days. Applications for both the assessment years seeking condonation of delay have been filed by the assessee. The contents of the application for AY 2013-14 are as follows: “1. That an order was passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y.: 2013-2014 on 14.03.2024.
The last day of filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal was on or around 13.05.2024.
The appeal was filed on 21.11.2024.
That there is a delay of around 192 days in filing of the appeal.
The delay is explained hereunder - a) That your petitioner was under the bonafide belief that Mr. Karan Bhutra, FCA who was entrusted with the work of looking after income tax matters, made proper compliance. b) That due to various ailments caused to him, Mr. Karan Bhutra was unable to attend office on a regular basis. Hence, proper compliance could not be made in response to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings. c) That eventually the appellate proceedings were completed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC by passing an exparte order dated 14.03.2024 which was also delivered in the email of the said consultant and the assessee was never informed about the receipt of order since the mail skipped his attention. However, copy of order was never received by the assessee physically. d) That recently on or around the first week of November, 2024 when your petitioner received a notice in respect of outstanding demand then the income tax portal was accessed and the said order was located. e) That then your petitioner approached Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate on or around 15.11.2024 for filing appeals before the Ld. Tribunal and handed over him all the relevant documents.