DEEPAK FERUMAL DESARAJE,AMRAVATI vs. ITO, WARD 1 , AMRAVATI
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2014-15. There was a delay of 191 days in filing this appeal to the Tribunal, which the Assessee attributed to a lack of email access and late discovery of the order. Prior to this, the Ld. Commissioner had dismissed the Assessee's first appeal *in limine* due to an approximate four-month delay, without providing an opportunity to explain the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 191-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the Assessee's reasons genuine and *bonafide*. It held that the Ld. Commissioner erred by not issuing notice or providing an opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate the delay in filing the first appeal. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on the limitation issue, with directions to the Assessee to file an application and affidavit for delay condonation, and if condoned, to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be condoned; and whether the Ld. Commissioner was justified in dismissing the first appeal *in limine* without providing an opportunity to the Assessee to explain the delay.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31/07/2024 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.
2 ITA No.236/NAG/2025 (Deepak Ferumal Desaraje) 2. Despite of sending notices for the date of hearing for 25/06/2025, the Assessee neither filed any adjournment application nor appeared and, therefore, this Court is inclined to decide this appeal as exparte qua Assessee.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 191 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee by filing an application for condonation of delay along with duly sworn affidavit dated 13/03/2025 and affirming the reasons stated for condonation of delay, has claimed that he is not conversant of operating emails and also not having his own email ID. Somehow, in the month of March 2025, the Assessee came to know about the impugned order when a notice server from Income Tax Office served a physical notice of penalty proceedings at his home. Therefore, the Assessee immediately contacted his Counsel, who immediately filed the instant appeal, however with a delay of 221 days. The delay occurred was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reason and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative (DR) refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee which are supported with duly sworn affidavit, as genuine, bonafide and
3 ITA No.236/NAG/2025 (Deepak Ferumal Desaraje) unintentional, the delay of 191 days as pointed out by the Registry, is condoned.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that there was also a delay of approximately four months in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Before the Ld. Commissioner in the appeal memo, Assessee has stated that due to change of consultant, the Assessee came to know about passing of assessment order. As the appeal period is over, the Assessee has filed appeal with delay. The Assessee has further prayed that delay may be condoned and the case be heard on merits. Ld.Commissioner by considering the reasons stated by the Assessee as insufficient cause, ultimately, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine, without condoning the delay.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Ld. Commissioner before passing the impugned order, did not issue any notice for giving opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate the delay occurred in filing of first appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that justice would be met by remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on the limitation. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant application along with affidavit in support of its
4 ITA No.236/NAG/2025 (Deepak Ferumal Desaraje) claim qua condonation of delay before the Ld. Commissioner. It is hereby clarified that in case of condoning the delay, the Ld. Commissioner shall decide the case on merits.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 23.09.2025 as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER
vr/-
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Nagpur The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur.
