Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit due to a delay in receiving the appellate order and subsequent processing by the counsel. The assessee claimed the delay was unintentional and due to sufficient cause. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 for lack of representation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
144, 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 20.01.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-Sendhwa [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 40 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:
The averments made by assessee in above application, which are self- explanatory and which do not require repetition, were discussed and the Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection if the bench condones delay and accordingly left it to the wisdom of bench. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time.
It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the facts of case, the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.
Ld. AR for assessee next submitted that the assessment-order was passed by AO u/s 144 for lack of representation by assessee. He submitted that the assessee is engaged in the activity of distributorship of Idea Cellular Ltd. and the cash received from customers against sale of cards/re-charge coupons, etc. were deposited in bank a/c and therefore the assessee has an explainable source of deposits made in bank but the assessee was not aware
Page 4 of 6 of assessment-proceedings due to non-receipt of notices and was unable to file relevant details/documents for satisfaction of AO. However, the assessee has all required documents in possession and is also ready to make submission before AO and that is why, the assessee made a specific request to CIT(A) during first-appeal to set aside present matter to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication. However, against request of assessee, the CIT(A) decided first-appeal and upheld AO’s order but the case of assessee requires an apt adjudication on the basis of evidences in possession of assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this matter must be remanded to AO for a fresh adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he does not have any objection against remand to AO but, however, he prays that the bench must give a strict direction to assessee for co-operation and representation before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
In view of above facts and considering the submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order after considering submissions of assessee, without being influenced by his previous order in any manner. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and Page 5 of 6 do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting up on notice board in terms of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/12/2025