Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, which itself had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an AO order under Section 144. There was a 211-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee attributed the delay and unawareness of the CIT(A) order to notices being sent to incorrect email IDs, different from the one provided in Form No.35.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 211-day delay, finding it neither deliberate nor intentional, and citing a justice-oriented approach. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) due to alleged non-service of proper notices.
Sections Cited
144, 282, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SM ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jhansi Kasam Vs. Income Tax Officer NALGONDA Ward -1 PAN:BVWPK2768P Suryapet (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P Vinod, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri V Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:
This appeal is filed by Jhansi Kasam (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 12/11/2024 for the A.Y. 2017- 18.
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 211 days in filing of the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Page 1 of 6 assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had, while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), mentioned the e- mail ID as “akularaghuram@yahoo.com” in column No.17 of Form No.35 for sending of notices to the assessee. However, none of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to this e-mail address. Instead, the notices were sent to other e-mail IDs such as “ashwini.coke@gmail.com” and “dlp5500@gmail.com”. As a result, the assessee was unaware of the notices as well as the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the assessee’s counsel, while checking the status of the appeal in the second week of August 2025, came to know for the first time about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee made necessary arrangements to file the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed for condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), on the other hand, objected to the condonation of delay, contending that the notices were sent by the Ld. CIT (A) to the mail ID available on the I.T Portal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee had, while
Page 2 of 6 filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), mentioned the e-mail ID as “akularaghuram@yahoo.com” in column No.17 of Form No.35 for sending of notices to the assessee. However, none of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to this e-mail address. Instead, the notices were sent to other e-mail IDs such as “ashwini.coke@gmail.com” and “dlp5500@gmail.com”. As a result, the assessee was unaware of the notices as well as the appellate order of the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the assessee’s counsel, while checking the status of the appeal in the second week of August 2025, came to know for the first time about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee made necessary arrangements to file the appeal before this Tribunal. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but caused due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambikapur in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31st January, 2025, has held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be taken while dealing with the application filed by an appellant seeking condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, taking a judicial and liberal approach, we condone the delay of 211 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for Assessment Year 2017–18, dated 19.11.2019. However, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
The Ld. AR reiterated that, as explained in the condonation petition, the notices were sent to e-mail IDs other than the one mentioned in Form No.35, due to which the assessee could not come to know about the same and, therefore, could not prosecute the appeal on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). It was thus prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee by restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits.
The Ld. DR, however, strongly objected to the remand, contending that adequate opportunities had already been granted to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), and that no further opportunities may be provided to the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On a careful examination of the record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte, primarily for non-compliance to the notices. However, the record shows that the notices were sent to e-mail IDs different from the one furnished by the assessee in Form No.35. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings. In view of the said facts and keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Page 5 of 6 assessee shall be at liberty to file all submissions, documents, and explanations in support of his claim before the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, the assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate fully in the appellate proceedings.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.