Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was filed with a significant delay. The delay was attributed to the death of the assessee's counsel and subsequent lack of knowledge of the ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable due to the death of the counsel and lack of knowledge of the ex-parte order. Whether the ex-parte order of CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
148, 68, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1282/JP/2024
vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 25-08-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order and confirming the addition made by the AO.
SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK 2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the AO grossly erred in issuing notice u/s 148of the Act, 1961 which issued without any reason to believe, is without any application of mind and the entire proceedings of reassessment deserves to be set aside.
3. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the AO grossly erred in making the addition u/s 68of the Act of Rs.18,80,000/ which is unjustified, bad in law and deserved to be deleted’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 724 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application dated 24-12-2024 for condonation of delay praying therein as under:- ‘1. That the ld.CIT(A) passed his order on 25-08-2022 which was served on the email id JAIN.MAHAVEERLAL@GMAIL.COM which belongs to the counsel of the assessee appellant on 26-08-2024.
That Counsel of the assessee Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain was expired on 30-05-2021 and communication of order dated 26- 08-2021 was not in the knowledge of the assessee appellant. Copy of death certificate of the counsel is enclosed herewith.
That assessee one day himself verify the portal and enquired regarding the status of the appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A) and there he finds that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte order on 26-08-2024.
That as soon as the passing the order came to the knowledge of the assesseee, the assessee appellant with the help of his counsel has filed this appeal before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 17-10-2024 with delay of 724 days.
SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK 5. That filing of the appeal subsequent to the expiry of limitation period as provided under the Act is because of death of earlier counsel of the assessee and which is beyond the control of the assessee appellant.
An affidavit duly sworn in this regard is also enclosed herewith. With this back ground, we request your honour to take stock of the situation in totality, take a lienent and human approach towards the humble assessee appellant as the delay was not intentional purely because of unavoidable circumstances. That in these circumstances, we request your honour to kindly condone the delay and oblige.’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the delay of 724 days is an inordinate delay but the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and gone through the submissions of the ld.AR of the assessee as well as affidavit of the assessee as the earlier counsel of the assessee Shri Mahaveer Lal Jain passed away on 30-05-2021 whereas the ld CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 25-08-2022 for which the assessee had no knowledge and thus he could not file the appeal in time before this Bench. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee in late filing the appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned.
SHRI RAJA RAM CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD - TONK 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal
, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding therein following narration. ‘’4.3 During the appellate proceedings, various notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued through ITBA Portal to the appellant vide dated 20-01-2021, 04-08-2022, 11-08-2022 and 17-08- 2022. It is noted that the appellant was given several opportunities to present its appeal by way of written submission and supporting documentary evidences. However, the assessee failed to comply with any reply/ submission. The appellant has not made any written submission and has only furnished copy of the assessment order, grounds of appeal and statement of facts in Form No.35. In view of the above, the appeal is decided on the basis of facts on material available on record. 4.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided many opportunities as enumerated above. However, the appellant has remained noncompliant. No material fact has been brought on record in support of the grounds of appeal to rebut the findings of the AO. The appellant in spite of being given ample opportunities during appellate proceedings, failed to offer any explanation/ supporting documents. I have carefully considered the assessment order and I find that the addition has been made correctly made by the AO. In view of the above facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Hence, addition of Rs.18,80,000/- is confirmed. Accordingly, al the grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that one more chance may be given to the assessee to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A)