STAR BIOTECH,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- PARWANOO, HIMACHAL PRADESH

At the outset, the appeal is delayed by 416 days. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit dated 02.04.2025 explaining the reasons for the delay. It is stated that the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 24.02.2023 was never served upon the assessee either physically or through the registered email address provided in Form 35, i.e., starbiotech38@gmail.com. Instead, notices and the appellate order were sent to an unrelated email ID linked to the previous counsel, which is not connected to the assessee’s e-filing profile or current representation.

The affidavit clarifies that the assessee remained genuinely unaware of the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). The situation resulted in a bonafide and unintentional delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which was filed only upon coming to know about the appellate outcome belatedly. In support, the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh [CWP No. 21028 of 2023 (O&M), dated 04.03.2024], wherein it was held that uploading of orders or notices solely on the income tax portal, without proper physical or email service, does not amount to due service and cannot impute knowledge to the assessee.

In order to further verify the claim, the Bench had directed the Revenue to submit a report regarding recovery action on the demand raised in the assessment order dated 28.03.2016. The Assessing Officer, in his report dated 02.05.2025, categorically admitted that no steps were taken to recover the demand of Rs.1,85,24,940/- for more than four years since the order. This official admission reinforces the assessee’s plea that there was no awareness of the proceedings or the outcome thereof. 5. We are of the considered view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained and is neither deliberate nor motivated by gain. In fact, the record clearly shows that the assessee has not derived any benefit by remaining absent before the CIT(A). The delay has resulted in the denial of appellate remedy, which is fundamental under the scheme of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 416 days in filing the present appeal, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- by the assessee to the Revenue within 30 days of the date of this order. 6. We would also like to express our concern on the administrative failure on part of the Revenue authorities, especially the Assessing Officer, who despite raising a demand of Rs.1,85,24,940/-, failed to initiate any recovery or follow-up action for more than four years. Such administrative lethargy undermines the credibility and efficiency of the Department. We direct the Ld. Pr. CIT having jurisdiction over the AO concerned to take note of this lapse and consider appropriate remedial or corrective measures to ensure accountability in such cases of prolonged inaction.