Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 583 days, which the CIT(A) dismissed without condoning the delay and without adjudicating on merits. The assessee's delay was attributed to issues with email communication and a lack of legal clarity.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 583 days, citing sufficient cause shown by the assessee and referring to Supreme Court judgments. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case, the Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable on the grounds of 'sufficient cause', and consequently, whether the appeal should be remanded for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
201, 201(1A), 1941A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 30.12.2024 of Addl/JCIT (A)-11 Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 31.03.2023 passed u/s.201(1)/201(1A) of the Act.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, written submissions have been filed on 04.08.2025 stating that the appeal may be decided on the basis of this written submission. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available records.
The only issue referred in the written submissions is that ld. PCIT erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and dismissing the appeal in limine being barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pradnyashraman Digambar Jainacharya Devnandi Trust Vs. CIT - order dated 06.06.2025
Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of Ld.CIT(A).
5. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the order u/s.201(1)/201(1A) has been passed raising demand for failure to deduct tax at source. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but it was filed with a delay of 583 days. Eventhough the assessee gave reasons for the delay, however ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with merits of the case.
6. Before us, assessee has reiterated the reasons which gave rise to the delay in the form of an Affidavit placed on record and the contents of the same reads as under :
“1. That I Purchased an Rural Agriculture Land which is excluded from the obligation to deduct TDS under section 1941A, AD, TDS, Kolhapur applying section 1941A treated me as Assessee in default, and has passed Order under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) is levied.
2. That, Order under section 201, was passed on 31-03-2023 The appeal before CIT(A), NFAC, should have been filed by 30-04- 2023. Whereas the appeal was actually filed on 04-12-2024. As such, there was a delay of 583 days 3. That the order dated 31-03-2023 was issued and served upon on the email ID: rksavant23@gmail.com without any real-time alert.
Indrajit Ramchandra Jagtap 4. That this email ID is looked in by our Sales Team and they failed to notice the said e mail. Thus, I was not made aware of the order had been served.
That, since all the communications initiated and replied by me were in an offline mode (Physically) I am neither techno conversant with the procedure nor I was expecting that communications would be electronically done.
That only upon receiving some sms from ITD in the Month of November 2024, regarding outstanding Demand. I become aware of the fact that order has been passed against me.
7. That, I had no legal clarity regarding the appropriate remedy to be taken against the order.
That after consulting legal counsel on 25 November 2024, it was advised and decided that filing an appeal was the appropriate course of action. Then upon submission of appropriate documents and information as required by the consultant, the appeal was filed.
9. That the appeal was promptly filed on 04-12-2024, resulting in a delay of 583 days, which was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to a genuine oversight in communication and legal uncertainty.”
From going through the above contents of the Affidavit and also examining the facts of the case, we find that ‘sufficient cause’ prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 583 days in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A).
8. Under these given facts and circumstances when the delay before ld.CIT(A) has been condoned and ld.CIT(A) having not dealt with merits of the case, we therefore remand back all the issues raised before us in the instant appeal relating to Indrajit Ramchandra Jagtap non deduction of tax at Rs.2,65,000/- on purchase of Agricultural land and levy of interest at Rs.46,050/- u/s.201(1A) of the Act to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 18th day of September, 2025.