Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 303 days. The delay was attributed to the negligence of the assessee's Chartered Accountant and the general confusion during the pandemic. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment ex-parte after the assessee failed to respond to notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. Refusing to condone a non-deliberate delay can lead to a meritorious matter being dismissed without a hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned on the grounds of the assessee's Chartered Accountant's negligence, to provide substantial justice.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.08.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 26.08.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,47,580/-. Since the information was received from the department database that the assessee has purchased the immovable property at Shivsagar Platinum, Flat No.F2-301, Anandnagar, Suncity Road, Pune – 51 from Sable Associates and paid Rs.5 lakh in cash, the case was reopened after taking the approval from the Pr.CCIT, Pune. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was also issued to explain the source of investment and furnish evidences in support thereof. Since the assessee did not file any reply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. He accordingly made the addition of Rs.5 lakh to the returned income of Rs.4,47,579/-.
The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 303 days. It was submitted that when the Assessing Officer issued notices, the pandemic was at its peak for which the assessee could not furnish any supporting details before the Assessing Officer. So far as the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is concerned, it was submitted that since the assessee is not well conversant with the intricacies of tax law, all the notices have been forwarded to the consultant who did not file the appeal in time. Relying on various decisions, it was requested to condone the delay.
However, the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was not satisfied with the reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal. Distinguishing the various decisions cited before him and relying on various other decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC as well as the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant filed before the Tribunal submitted that the delay was due to the negligence of the concerned Chartered Accountant and the delay is not attributable to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has forwarded all the papers to the concerned Chartered Accountant who failed in his duty to file the appeal. He submitted that although the assessee is vigilant but since he is not well conversant with the intricacies of tax law, it missed his attention. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He accordingly submitted that the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and decide the issue on merit.
Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the appeal was filed with a delay of 303 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the same on account of delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the negligence of the concerned Chartered Accountant. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.
We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) 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 happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the appeal on merit as per fact and law after giving one opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th March, 2025.