Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2013-14 declaring Rs. 1,28,007/-, but the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) determining income at Rs. 18,65,920/- and imposed a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed both quantum and penalty appeals ex-parte. The assessee then filed appeals to the ITAT with a delay of 1,100 days, attributing the delay to communication issues with a previous counsel who subsequently passed away.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 1,100-day delay, finding 'sufficient cause' based on the reasons provided by the assessee's AR and applying Section 253(5) and the principle of substantial justice. Both the quantum and penalty appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing and is directed to remain vigilant.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the ITAT and the consequent remand of appeals to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to previous ex-parte dismissal.
Sections Cited
143(3), 271(1)(c), 143(2), 142(1), 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, AM:
The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee. The details of appeals are as under:
05.10.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 passed by ITO, Raisen [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. is a penalty-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 05.10.2021 passed by CIT(A) which in turn arises
Page 1 of 6 & 29/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 out of penalty-order dated 24.08.2016 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,28,007/-. The case of assessee was taken for scrutiny and the AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied by assessee. Ultimately, the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) vide assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 after making certain disallowances and determining total income at Rs. 18,65,920/-. Simultaneously, the AO also intiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide notice dated 29.02.2016 and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,12,630/- (+) cess on penalty of Rs. 3,380/- vide penalty-order dated 24.08.2016.
Aggrieved by both orders i.e. the assessment-order dated 29.03.2016 and penalty-order dated 24.08.2016, the assessee filed two separate appeals to CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed both appeals vide two separate orders dated 05.10.2021. Now, the assessee has come before Tribunal in the captioned two appeals.
Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity.
The registry has informed that both of these appeals are delayed by 1,100 days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that Page 2 of 6 & 29/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee has filed condonation-applications supported by affidavits.
Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that in the Income-tax Portal as well as Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A), the e-mail id rarinwa@gmail.com was given which was an email id of previous counsel Shri Ashwini Rinwa. That the CIT(A) issued three notices of hearings dated 04.03.2020, 23.12.2020 and 15.09.2021 out of which first two notices were issued to a different email id rarinwa@yahoo.in which also belonged to the previous counsel but which was not in active use. Further, the last notice was only sent to correct email id rarinwa@gmail.com supplied in Form No. 35 but that notice was missed by previous counsel which has led the CIT(A) to pass impugned orders ex- parte to assessee and dismiss assessee’s first-appeals. Ld. AR further narrated that the previous counsel unfortunately expired on 22.11.2024 (copy of death certificate is filed) without giving any information of the first appeals to assessee and the assessee had no information of the impugned orders having been passed by CIT(A). Ultimately, when the assessee appointed present counsel who checked the e-proceeding tab in the a/c of assessee on income-tax website that the assessee got knowledge of first- appeals having been dismissed. Immediately, the assessee arranged to file appeals with the help of present counsel. Ld. AR narrated that there was no physical service of the notices of hearing or the impugned order by CIT(A).
Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He further
Page 3 of 6 & 29/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation- application. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR expressed no objection if the delay is condoned taking into account the facts narrated by Ld. AR. 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 these appeals and proceed with hearing.
On merit of cases, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matters should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication of the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first-appeals. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his cases before CIT(A) and do
Page 4 of 6 & 29/Ind/2025 – A.Y. 2013-14 not seek unnecessary adjournments. Considering these submissions of parties and having regard to the principle of natural justice, we remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, both of these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 19/08/2025