Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-compliance with notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that it was due to the earlier counsel's negligence. The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the negligence of the previous counsel, and whether the ex parte order of CIT(A) should be set aside.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Athipalli Sai Sravan (“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 30.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In support of the condonation of delay, the assessee has filed a petition along with relevant facts explaining the cause of delay.
3.1 The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the e-mail ID of the then counsel was mentioned in the appeal memo. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the said counsel failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), and did not communicate the progress or status of the proceedings to the assessee. The assessee became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only after nearly 80 days from the date of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a new counsel and took necessary steps for filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. This sequence of events led to a delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR pleaded before the Bench that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to the bona fide lapse on the part of the earlier counsel. He prayed that the delay may be condoned by taking a justice-oriented and liberal approach, so that the assessee is not denied the opportunity of being heard on merits due to the fault of his previous representative.
3.2 Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that sufficient opportunity had been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), and hence the assessee ought to have been vigilant in prosecuting its appeal.
3.3 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the petition for condonation of delay along with the explanation offered by the assessee. It is evident that the delay occurred primarily due to the negligence of the earlier counsel who failed to communicate or act upon the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee, being unaware of the development, came to know of the dismissal only after significant time had lapsed. Upon becoming aware, the assessee acted promptly and filed the appeal without further delay. In our considered view, the cause shown constitutes a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that technicalities should not override substantive justice and that courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach, particularly when the delay is explained to be due to factors beyond the control of the litigant. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and equity, we condone the delay of 100 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.
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 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 19.04.2021. As explained in the condonation petition and in the course of hearing, while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the e-mail ID of the assessee’s then authorised counsel was provided in the appeal memo. However, during the appellate proceedings, the said counsel failed to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and did not inform the assessee regarding the progress of the appeal. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, dismissing the appeal without adjudicating it on merits.
The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the assessee was not at fault and that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) remained unattended solely due to the inaction of the earlier authorised counsel. The assessee became aware of the dismissal of the appeal only much later and thereafter promptly took steps to approach new counsel and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that due to the fault of the earlier representative, the assessee could not prosecute its appeal on merits and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted in the interest of justice. He therefore requested that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and permitting the assessee to file all necessary evidences and supporting documents.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the plea for remand and submitted that sufficient opportunity was already given by the Ld. CIT(A), but the assessee failed to avail the same. The Ld. DR submitted that remanding the matter would result in unnecessary prolongation of proceedings, especially when the assessee was at fault for not ensuring proper compliance before the appellate authority.
We have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and examined the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance of notices. The explanation offered by the assessee that the earlier counsel failed to inform or update the assessee appears to be bona fide, and there is nothing on record to show that the assessee had acted with malafide intent or indifference. In such circumstances, and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the appeal on merits. Dismissing the appeal for technical reasons, without adjudicating the grounds, would not be in the interest of substantive justice. Accordingly, we set aside the ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and granting liberty to file necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and ensure timely compliance as per the directions of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the assessee.