Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 98 days due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee claimed that this error prevented them from being aware of the hearing dates and the order. The Ld. DR objected to the condonation of delay, stating the reasons were insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 98 days, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and bona fide, citing a Supreme Court judgment for a liberal approach. The Tribunal also restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing an opportunity of being heard and a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee, and whether the case should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vijay Tiles & Cement Vs. Assistant CIT Products, HYDERABAD Circle 11(1) PAN: AAGFV3841A Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Vijay Tiles & Cement Products (“the assessee”) feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 05/12/2024 for the A.Y 2013-14.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 98 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. In this regard, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited our attention to para 4
Page 1 of 5 of the affidavit and Serial No.17 of Form No.35 and submitted that the assessee had mentioned his correct email ID as “akularaghuram@yahoo.com” for service of notices. However, the office of the Ld. CIT(A) sent all the hearing notices to a different email ID, namely “sivaram.accountant@gmail.com”. Due to such error in communication, the assessee could not receive any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and consequently was unaware of the hearings as well as the order passed. The Ld. AR submitted that as soon as the assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order, he took immediate steps to file the present appeal. Hence, the delay was neither deliberate nor with mala fide intention but due to genuine and bona fide reasons beyond the assessee’s control. It was, therefore, prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and contended that the reason explained by the assessee is not sufficient to condone the delay.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the affidavit as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute about the facts that all notices of the Ld. CIT (A) were sent to an incorrect email ID and therefore, the assessee could not come to know about the passing of appellate order in time. In our considered view, the explanation offered is reasonable, bona fide, and constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 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
Page 2 of 5 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. Respectfully following the said principle, the delay of 98 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 15.12.2019 for the assessment year 2014–15. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and upheld the order passed by the Ld. AO.
7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, as already explained while seeking condonation of delay, all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to a different email ID and not to the email address provided by the assessee in Form No.35. Therefore, the assessee could not know about the hearings fixed or the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the assessee had every intention to pursue his appeal diligently and that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if one more opportunity was granted. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard.
8. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the remand of the matter, contending that sufficient opportunities had already been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), which were not availed by the assessee. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of non-appearance of the Page 4 of 5 assessee. The Ld. AR has submitted that, all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent to a different email ID and not to the email address provided by the assessee in Form No.35. Therefore, the assessee could not know about the hearings fixed or the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT (A). Considering the present facts of the case and in the interest of natural justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to decide the issues on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation during the appellate proceedings and to refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.