Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed beyond the limitation period, citing a delay of 192 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, explaining that their consultant was ill, leading to non-compliance and an ex-parte order from the CIT(A). The assessee only became aware of the outstanding demand later and then engaged new representatives.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and was prevented from filing within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal set aside both the order of the CIT(A) and the AO, directing a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte assessment orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) are justified.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 151, 10(26AAA), 69A, 144, 144B
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.