Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order that dismissed their appeal against an assessment order. The appeal was filed significantly beyond the prescribed limitation period.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the deposit of costs, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) for further proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
147, 144, 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 16/JP/2025
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal came to be presented on 8-01-2025 thereby challenging the order dated 02-03-2023 passed by ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2008-09. 2. Vide impugned order, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal which was filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 31-03-2016 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
Vide assessment order dated 31-03-2016, the AO computed long term capital gain of the assessee at Rs.1,84,03,432/-, while taking into consideration the sale consideration of the immovable property u/s 50C of the Act, and deducting Indexed Cost of Acquisition to the tune of Rs.27,550/-.
Since the impugned order was passed by the ld.CIT(A) of 2-03-2023, and the appeal came to be presented here on 8-1-2025, Registry recorded a deficiency note that the appeal was presented 588 days after prescribed period of limitation. That is why, an application has been filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
Arguments heard. File perused.. 6. On the application seeking condonation of delay, ld AR for the appellant has submitted that the assessee-applicant could not participate in the appeal, after remand report was called by ld. CIT(A), as regards additional evidence, for want of service of notice on the assessee personally. 7. A perusal of Form 35 submitted before the ld.CIT(A) would reveal that E-mail ID in Column No. 17 thereof was: opagarwalandco@gmail.com’’. In the course of arguments, the ld. AR for the applicant admits that this E- mail ID is of the Authorised Representative of the assessee, through whom the appeal was filed.
SHRI KALYAN SAHAY MEENA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR Having regard to the said E-mail Id of the AR of the assessee, who presented appeal before the ld.CIT(A), ld.DR for the Department has submitted that it is not the case of the applicant that notices were not served upon his AR by the Office of the ld. CIT(A) at the said E-mail ID, and there being no sufficient ground for condonation of delay, the application deserves to be dismissed.
Admittedly, the ld. AR of the assessee who presented before the ld .CIT(A) had given his own E-mail ID in Column No 17 for the purpose of service of notices. In this situation, it was for the AR of the assessee-appellant to explain as to why he did not apprise the assessee about the notice received in connection with remand report proceedings before the AO. It is true that when an assessee engages some Tax Consultant or Tax Practitioner or Advocate, as his representative to represent him in certain proceedings, it does not mean that the assessee should forget about the said proceedings or to contact the AR to acquaint himself about the progress in the said proceedings. The assessee-applicant has not submitted any affidavit of the AR through whom appeal was filed before the ld CIT(A). It is not the case of the assessee that he filed any complaint against his AR for not having informed him about the receipt of the notice in connection with remand report proceedings before the AO.
In the given circumstances, we deem it a fit case to allow application seeking condonation of delay, but with the direction for deposit of cost of Rs.2,500/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
Arguments have also been advanced on merits, today itself. File perused.
Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that in the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that certain additional evidences were submitted, whereupon ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO, but, the appellant could not file response to the notice received from the AO. ld. AR submits that because of no communication from the AR, no response could be submitted to the said notice issued by the AO in connection with remand report proceedings. He however submits that one opportunity be provided to the assessee to participate in the proceedings relating to the remand report as requisitioned by the ld. CIT(A). 12. Ld.DR for the Department submits sufficient opportunity was provided by the AO in connection with remand report proceedings, but the assessee did not submit any response. However, ld DR has no objection to the grant of another opportunity to the assessee to furnish his response to the notice issued in connection with remand report proceedings.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the issues involved, we find that assessee should have submitted his response to the notice issued by the AO, particularly when the appellant himself had submitted additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A). But, he failed to do so. This shows sheer negligence from the side of the appellant.