Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S.
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 13/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 04/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 06/08/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Kaigala Surya Chandra Rao (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2022-23, assessee preferred this appeal with a delay of 20 days.
At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee was suffering with the Polyarthralgia and was not in a position to attend any work and it caused the delay in filing of this appeal. He further submitted that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) was passed on 20/3/2024 and the appeal before the learned CIT(A) was to be filed on or before 20/4/2024, but since the assessment order was not found in the Income Tax portal, though the order was served on him, the appeal could not be filed within time causing delay of only 10 days, but the learned CIT(A) refused to condone the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before him stating that according to the assessee himself he received the impugned order on 20/3/2024 itself. Learned AR submitted that though the order was received by the assessee, for cross verification when the assessee verified the Income Tax portal he could not find the assessment order and in that process it took time for the assessee to file the appeal. He submitted that assessee does not stand to gain by filing the appeals with the delay and it is only due to the justifiable circumstances the delay occurred and given an opportunity the assessee would prosecute the proceedings diligently.
Learned DR placed reliance on the impugned order to state that when once the assessee received the assessment order, there was no reason for him to verify the Income Tax portal or to plead the nonavailability of the assessment order in the Income Tax portal as a reason for the delay.
4 . We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. In form 35 itself the assessee mentioned the date of service of the assessment order as 20/3/2024 but as a reason for the delay assessee pleaded that the assessment order was not available in the Income Tax portal and that is the reason why the appeal could not be filed within time. There is nothing to suspect the statement of the assessee that on receipt of the assessment order, as a matter of precaution the assessee tried to verify the Income Tax portal but since he could not find the assessment order in the Income Tax portal at the time he waited for some time and then filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A).
Assessee does not stand to gain by filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) with any delay nor can be infer any mala fides on the part of the assessee in filing the appeal with a delay of 10 days. The highest that would happen by condoning the delay of 10 days is that a cause could be decided on merits and the correct tax liability of the assessee could be determined in the interest of justice. We therefore find it to be a fit case to condone the delay occurred in filing the appeal before us and also the learned CIT(A), and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits.
With this view of the matter, we condone the delay and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Ground are answered accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of March, 2025.