Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for a delay of 997 days, without adjudication on merits. The delay was attributed to notices not being received on the operative email ID, and the assessee being unaware of the proceedings until a demand notice was received.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that there was sufficient reason for the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay was sufficiently explained.
Sections Cited
250, 251(2), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 28.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant's appeal and confirming the action of the AO making addition of Rs. 17,04,82,609/- and Rs. 52,62,22,481/- solely on the ground that the appellant has not provided sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal and has failed to respond to various notices. This was done without discussing or deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the appellant respectfully prays that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), be set aside and matter be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose the appeal on merits and the CIT(A) should apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him as provided in the Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the various notices from the AO were not received by the appellant as the mail id on which the notices were served was not operated by the appellant and appellant was under bonafide belief that the consultant was taking care of notices.
The Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO failed to appreciate that the fact ought to have been verified whether proper notice has been served or not, before passing ex-parte orders.
The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had clearly explained through the affidavit the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal
.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal.
2.1 Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted an Affidavit to explain the reason for delay. Ld.AR submitted that there was sufficient reason for delay, hence delay should have been condoned. Ld.AR submitted that delay of 997 days was on account of the notices being submitted to the Email-id which was not operated by Assessee. As a result, assessee was not aware about the notices. Assessee got to know about the assessment order only on receiving demand notice. Ld.AR submitted that delay may kindly be condoned and assessee may be permitted one more opportunity to submit the details.
Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, admittedly there was a delay of 997 days in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay. It is also noted that assessment order was u/s.144 of the Act.
4.1 In this case, assessee had filed an Affidavit before the ld.CIT(A) with a request to condone the delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient reason for delay. No assessee will gain anything by consciously delaying the appeal.
4.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “ 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 4.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Vs. UOI [2018] 89 taxmann.com 194 (Bombay)[06-11-2017] has observed as under while condoning the delay in that case : Quote ,“ 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was not necessary for the petitioner to have explained each and every day's delay. On the contrary, the Apex Court held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred. The Apex Court also held there is no presumption that delay is intentional and deliberate, as normally a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay” Unquote.
5. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that grave injustice is caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay, by ld.CIT(A). Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Therefore, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee shall file all details before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.