Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were time-barred, with delays ranging from 41 to 346 days. The assessee's Chartered Accountant failed to comply with notices, leading to ex-parte orders being passed by the CIT(A). The assessee sought condonation of delay due to circumstances beyond their control.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserves to be condoned and whether ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits warrant a remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
253(5), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned four appeals pertaining to the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 at the instance of assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn are arising out of the respective Assessment orders.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the instant appeals are time barred by limitation by 286 days, 194 days, 346 days and 41 days respectively before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits stating that the notices of hearing were sent on email id of the Chartered Accountant Mr. P.B. Shah as well as one of the partners of the firm who inturn forwarded the same to the Chartered Accountant. However, the said Chartered Accountant failed to make any compliance to the said notices which led to passing of the exparte orders. It was therefore unaware of the notices as well as passing of the orders. It was only when the assessee consulted Senior Chartered Accountant, it came to know about passing of the orders exparte. The delay occurred in the instant appeals are due to circumstances beyond control of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned. On merits of the case, ld. Counsel submitted that since ld.CIT(A) has passed the exparte orders dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution, without going into merits of the issues, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee for making proper representation before the ld.CIT(A). It is therefore prayed for remanding the issues on merit to the file of CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.
There is no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The moot point is as to whether such a delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay.
In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another vs. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 BomHC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon’ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC, held that : `It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year. For this reason we set aside the order of the High Court; condone the delay for filing the appeal and direct to decide the appeal on merits.’
Turning to the facts of the instant appeals, we find that the legal issue of passing the exparte orders dismissing the appeals at the threshold stage has merit in favour of the assessee, which requires readjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, we condone the delay occurred in the instant cases in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
On perusal of the impugned orders, it reveals that they were passed exparte qua the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal in limine, without discussing anything on merits of the issues. The settled position of law mandates that the ld.CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act giving reasons thereof. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and there being no objection from the side of ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give an opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits in the instant appeals are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to file any evidence as it deems expedient and ld.CIT(A) shall consider all the submissions of the assessee and pass the orders in conformity with the provisions envisaged u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to provide proper email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the years under appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of February, 2025.