Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 was filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 718 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-filing, issues with receiving communications due to an earlier counsel's email address, and personal reasons like the prolonged illness and death of the assessee's father-in-law. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, and the AO had passed an ex-parte assessment order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide and not intentional. It further held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and that the AO had passed an ex-parte order. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the case should be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after an ex-parte assessment and dismissal by the first appellate authority.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & PARESH M. JOSHI
Assessee by : Shri Ashish Goyal, AR Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Revenue by : Date of hearing : 21.10.2025 : Date of pronouncement 23.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 27.01.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 08.12.2018 passed u/s.147/144 of the Act.
Mani Agrawal 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 718 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the Affidavit stated that the assessee is not well conversant with income-tax laws and with the e-filing portal and also was not able to search for Tax Consultant/Legal Professional for taking up the work of filing the appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal as the assessee could not receive the e- mails/notices/order etc. because the same were sent to the e-mail of the earlier Counsel. Further, it was also submitted that the father-in-law of the assessee was suffering from prolonged illness, and passed away, therefore, she could not consult the new Counsel and delay occurred. He also submitted that the delay is not intentional and due to bona fide reason and for no fault of the assessee. He therefore requested for condoning the delay. Ld. Departmental Representative opposed this request.
We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the averments made in the affidavit. Hon’ble courts in plethora of judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may Mani Agrawal be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the appeal filed by the appellant with a delay was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow for the examination of the case on its merits. Having gone through the averments made in the affidavit and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 718 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
On merits of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with the merits of the case and the AO also passed ex- parte assessment order u/s 144/147 of the I. T. Act, therefore prayed for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to go before the Ld. CIT)(A). Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose this request.
Mani Agrawal 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is aggrieved with the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.20,56,000/- for A.Y. 2012-13 vide assessment order dated 08.12.2018. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 25.12.2018. The appeal was taken up by ld. NFAC almost after three years that too during covid-19 pandemic outbreak. We observe that notices issued were uncompiled with as same were sent to e-mail of earlier Counsel and the father-in-law of the assessee was suffering from prolonged illness, and passed away, therefore, she could not do needful in the matter. Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that the non- compliance is not intentional and due to bona fide reason and for no fault of the assessee. He, therefore, requested for restoration of the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Further, we notice that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case and the AO also passed ex-parte assessment order.
Under these given facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues raised on merit to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to say that the Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) holding that Mani Agrawal ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Further, assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.