Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A). There was a delay of 278 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to not being aware of the hearing notices and the outstanding demand.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte due to the assessee's non-response to hearing notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250 of Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao
:Asst.Year 2016-2017 Sri.Ayyappan Pillai The Income Tax Officer Krishnakumar v. Ward 1(4) House No.16, Thulasi Nivas Trivandrum. Vanchiyoor, Thakaraparambu Trivandrum – 695 035. PAN : AJWPA8002H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.K.K.John, ITP Respondent by : Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :09.04.2025 Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 O R D E R
Per George George K, Vice-President :
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] dated 16.01.2024 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2016-2017.
There is a delay of 278 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condoning the delay and a supporting affidavit stating the reasons for late filing of this appeal. In the affidavit, it is stated that the . Ayyappan Pillai Krishnakumar. assessee became aware of the order of the CIT(A) only when notice for payment of outstanding demand dated 01.11.2024 was received by him. It is stated that the hearing notice from the office of CIT(A) were mailed to his friends email id and the assessee was not conversant with opening email etc. It is prayed that delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned for rendering substantial justice.
2.1 We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee. We are of the view that there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal and no latches can be attributed to the assessee. Hence, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of the same on merits.
At the very outset we notice that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices issued by the office of the CIT(A). The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee was not aware about the hearing notices issued to him from the office of the first appellate authority. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice and equity the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A).
On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR supported the orders of the AO making addition and the CIT(A) confirming the same.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the CIT(A)'s order is ex parte order since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices nor filed written . Ayyappan Pillai Krishnakumar. submissions. As a last opportunity, in the interest of justice and equity, we restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (Since the relevant details / evidences were not furnished during the course of assessment proceedings). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 9th day of April, 2025.