Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09, which was delayed by 221 days due to the Chartered Accountant's ill health and a computer crash. The Ld. CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. 2. Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, in light of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S.
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 20/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 04/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 18/09/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi(“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Rajendra Prasad Konathala (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2008-09, assessee preferred this appeal.
At the outset, both the parties brought to the notice of the Bench that the appeal is filed with a delay of 221 days. Though learned AR submitted that the reason for the delay was that their chartered accountant suffered a heart attack and underwent bypass surgery and apart from that there was a crash of the computer which caused the delay. Though the counsel tried to submit that though the appellate order was passed on 18/9/2023, there was no communication either through email or any other electronic media and therefore, the period between the date of the impugned order and the date of communication has to be excluded. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of TVL Deepa traders vs. DCIT in WP No. 19277 of 2024, order dated 13/8/2024. Learned DR submitted that the impugned order was uploaded on the date of passing of the order itself and, therefore, the date of uploading of the order shall be deemed to have been the date of service of the order and the learned DR placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Rapiscan Systems Private Limited vs. DDIT in the petitioner No. 44891 and 44915 of 2022 by order dated 9/1/2025 wherein it was held that the moment the order is uploaded and the Centre of lost control over such dispatch on the date and time the order was uploaded and therefore the same date and time shall be treated to be the received by the recipient.
On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that when once the order of the learned CIT(A) is uploaded to the portal of the Department, the same shall be taken as the date of receipt by the assessee. However, keeping in consideration the plea taken by the assessee that the Chartered Accountant was raised about 76 years and suffered a heart attack and bypass surgery, causing the delay, we are of the considered opinion that by condoning the delay the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. With this view of the matter, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits.
Learned AR submitted that the assessee is not aware of the notices served on him as he is not conversant with the emails or portals. His main plank of argument is that even in the absence of the assessee since the assessment order is available before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) could have proceeded to advert to the merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with.
5 Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeals on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits, instead of dismissing the same in limine.
As could be seen from the record, we find that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeals ex-parte, observing that various notices have been issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised.
Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that 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. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained.
With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned CIT(A) in getting the matter disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned CIT(A) to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th March, 2025.