Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte reassessment order. The assessee failed to comply with notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) was attributed to the assessee's Chartered Accountant not timely noticing the emails. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without condoning it.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that refusing to condone delay can defeat justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and decide on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to decide the case on merits, and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 69A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE- & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.255/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-2016) Dilipchand Sobhagchand ITO, Ward-1, Latur. Chopda, Nathmalji Enterprises, Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra. vs. PAN : AARPC 4762 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shubham N. Rathi, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025 ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM:
The appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order dated 12.12.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted it is a case of reopening of assessment. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the reassessment ex-parte on account of non-compliance to the notice(s)/ show cause notice issued by him during the reassessment proceedings. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 83,25,62,575/- being the amounts credited in assessee’s ICICI bank account, to the returned income of Rs. 9,87,720/- of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act on account of assessee’s failure to provide the explanation about the transactions to the tune of Rs. 83,25,62,575/- which is much higher
2 ITA.No.255/PUN./2025 (Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda) to the turnover of Rs. 60,39,930/- declared in the original return filed by the assessee. Relying on the affidavit of the assessee filed before us, he submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. AO was not intentional but has resulted due to the reason that the email ID of his Chartered Accountant was provided on the IT Portal as he is not conversant with the income tax provisions and also with using of email ID. The notices(s) were served on the email ID of his Chartered Accountant which inadvertently went unnoticed by him as he was not using that email account on regular basis. Thereafter, when the staff of the Chartered Accountant checked the said email account, the assessee came to know about the ex-parte assessment order already passed by the Ld. AO causing delay of 119 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without admitting the same observing that the assessee failed to substantiate such delay with sufficient cause/ reason in the absence of an affidavit along with supporting documentary evidence filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional. It was because of the assessee’s lack of knowledge but this contention of the assessee as stated in Form 35 was not found to be acceptable by the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits but the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present and substantiate his case by the Ld. CIT(A) He therefore prayed that matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and to decide the case on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
4. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/AO.
3 ITA.No.255/PUN./2025 (Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda) 3. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The assessee is a commission agent dealing in trading of agricultural produce such as oil seeds, pulses and other food grains purchased from the farmers. The Ld. AO has passed the reassessment order ex-parte on account of assessee’s failure to comply with the statutory notice(s)/ letter issued by him from time to time. The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 119 days in filing of appeal before him and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible on the ground that assessee has not demonstrated that sufficient cause existed for non-filing of the appeal within due time supported by an affidavit in respect thereof. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. AO and delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional but has resulted due to the reason stated in the affidavit of the assessee placed on record which is reproduced in the preceding paragraph. He has therefore urged before us that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal by condoning the delay and to pass speaking order on merits of the case. Considering the factual matrix of the case and the legal position in support of the assessee’s claim, we find some force in the submissions/ contentions of the Ld. AR.
We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can
4 ITA.No.255/PUN./2025 (Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda) happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:
“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
Respectfully following the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated above, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play, to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits of the case regarding the addition made by the Ld. AO and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act as per fact and law on all the ground of appeal
raised by the assessee, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is further directed to provide the correct and latest email id and contact details to the Department for receiving notice(s) of hearing and remain vigilant in responding to the same without taking adjournment under any pretext whatsoever, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. Ground no. 1 with its sub-ground no. 1.1 to 1.3 and Ground no. 3 with its sub-ground nos. 3.1 to 3.4 raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In Ground no. 2 with its sub-ground nos. 2.1 to 2.3, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, however, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has 5. ITA.No.255/PUN./2025 (Dilipchand Sobhagchand Chopda) not made any submissions and/ or placed any argument before us in respect of this ground and therefore we refrain ourselves from adjudicating the same and dismiss ground no. 3 along with its sub- grounds as such. Ground no. 4 is general in nature not requiring adjudication.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 27.05.2025.