ASHISH GOYAL HUF,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER , NEEMUCH
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals (ITA No. 386/Ind/2024 and ITA No. 387/Ind/2024) which were found to be time-barred by 379 and 277 days respectively. The delay occurred because the CIT(A) sent notices to an incorrect email address, and did not serve orders through physical mode, preventing the assessee from being aware of the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principle of substantial justice and a Supreme Court ruling. It was held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act by not properly stating the points of determination and reasons for the decision in its orders, which also suffered from non-prosecution.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned due to communication errors by the CIT(A)? Whether the CIT(A)'s orders are sustainable when they do not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6)?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 253(5), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Bench:
The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee. The details of these appeals are as under:
(i) ITA No. 386/Ind/2024 is an appeal against the order of first-appeal dated 06.02.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 09.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Neemuch [“AO”] u/s 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12.
Page 1 of 5
Ashish Goyal HUF, Neemuch ITA No. 386 & 387/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 & 2014-15
(ii) ITA No. 387/Ind/2024 is an appeal against the order of first-appeal
dated 18.05.2023 passed by learned CIT(A) which in turn arises out of
assessment-order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned AO u/s
143(3)/147 of the Act for AY 2014-15.
The registry has informed that these appeals are delayed by 379 days
and 277 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee
submitted that the assessee has filed condonation-applications and prays
for condonation. So far as reason of delay in filing appeals is concerned, Ld.
AR submitted that the assessee has given email id nagda.ashok1982
@gmail.com in Form No. 35 for sending communications of first-appeal but
the CIT(A) sent communications to vkjainmh@yahoo.com. Ld. AR has placed
on record the copies of notices sent by CIT(A) to demonstrate this clinching
fact. Therefore, the notices of hearing and impugned order did not reach to
assessee. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has not served notices and
order through physical mode. Hence, neither the assessee could avail
opportunity of hearings before CIT(A) which led to passing of ex-parte orders
by CIT(A) nor the assessee could file present appeals in time. It is
subsequently when the counsel of assessee visited income-tax portal that
the impugned orders came to his knowledge. Immediately, the assessee
arranged to file present appeals without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly
submitted that there is no deliberate 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 submitted
Page 2 of 5
Ashish Goyal HUF, Neemuch ITA No. 386 & 387/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 & 2014-15
that the sole reason of delay is as narrated. Ld. DR for Revenue left the
matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. 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 appeals. 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 provision of
section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a
judicious view, condone delay, admit appeals and proceed with hearing.
Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the
Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall
state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the
decision.”. We observe that in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed
assessee’s first-appeals and merely confirmed AO’s orders, although due to
non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing but still without
complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first
appeal-orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be set aside and these matters
are fit for restoring to him for a proper adjudication. Ld. AR for assessee
Page 3 of 5
Ashish Goyal HUF, Neemuch ITA No. 386 & 387/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 & 2014-15
submits that the assessee is ready and willing to make representation before
CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matters
should be remanded to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication in terms of section
250(6). 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 not
seek unnecessary adjournments.
Considering above submissions and also having regard to the
principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand these
matters back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall
give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate
order uninfluenced by his earlier orders. The assessee is also directed to
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, these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 31/01/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 31.01.2025 Patel/Sr. PS
Page 4 of 5
Ashish Goyal HUF, Neemuch ITA No. 386 & 387/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 & 2014-15
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order
Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 5 of 5
