Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed appeals against orders from the CIT(A) for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15, with a delay of 666 days, citing operational challenges in a remote, Naxal-affected tribal area, including limited internet access and incorrect email communication for notices. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte, affirming additions made by the AO under Section 143(3) due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 666-day delay, accepting the Assessee's reasons as genuine. All appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with directions to provide the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, subject to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal to the High Court Legal Service Authority. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the 666-day delay in filing appeals should be condoned given the Assessee's remote location and communication issues; and whether the ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) was justified given these circumstances.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Present for: Assessee by : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ld. CA Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 O R D E R
These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the separate orders dated 31/05/2023, 31/05/2023 & 16/06/2023 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.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 respectively.
(Shri Gajanan Prasana Adiwasi Majoor Kamgar Sahkari Sanstha) 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 666 days in filing of the instant appeals, on which the Assessee has claimed as under:-
The society operators from a Left Wing Extremism (LTE) Naxal- affected (Refer page No. 23 of paper book), remote tribal village with very limited internet access, negligible professional assistance, and a largely illiterate population unfamiliar with digital compliance mechanism. The village Sitepar, is a small village having population of only 1121 as per 2011 census (Refer page 26 of paper book) Email notices issued by CIT(A) were sent to Email IDs which could not be accessed or replied to, due to unavailability of computers and internet facility with the society. The email ID given for appeals on which notices were sent were not forwarded to new management of the society by respective individuals. The society is law abiding in nature. The society had complied and cooperated in scrutiny assessment proceedings u/sec. 143(3) of the Act. The society became aware of adverse orders and demands only after recovery proceedings were initiated by the department. In view of the above, the delay deserves to be condoned as it is due to genuine hardship arising from socio-economic and geographical disadvantages, and not due to any mala fide intention or negligence.”
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative (DR) refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Considering the reasons stated above by the Assessee for condonation of delay, as genuine, bonafide and unintentional, delay of 666 days in filing of the instant appeals, are hereby condoned, (Shri Gajanan Prasana Adiwasi Majoor Kamgar Sahkari Sanstha) however, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in each appeal, which shall be paid to the High Court Legal Service Authority, Nagpur within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
All these three appeals having involved identical facts and issues and, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration as a lead case and result of the same shall apply mutatis mutandis to all the appeals under consideration.
In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide assessment order dated 21/12/2018 u/sec. 143(3) of the Act, has made the following additions/disallowances:-
(i) Rs. 1,48,000/- on account of deduction claimed; (ii) Rs. 16,500/- on account of expenses claimed; (iii) Rs. 3,947/- on account of conduction of AGM; and, (iv) Rs. 47,822/- on account of office and other expenses
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions/ disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities, eventually made (Shri Gajanan Prasana Adiwasi Majoor Kamgar Sahkari Sanstha) no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances and in the absence of documentary evidences/proof, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as exparte and dismissed the same, by affirming the aforesaid additions/ disallowances.
Admittedly, the issues involved in this case, specifically in absence of relevant documents and submissions also remained to be adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner. With regard to non- compliance to the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee has claimed that notices were issued to old email IDs, as the Assessee is operating from a remote tribal area with limited professional and technological infrastructure, could not respond effectively. Therefore, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on production of payment receipt of Rs.5,000/- in each appeal, suffice to say by affording a reasonable opportunity of bearing heard to the Assessee. Thus, the cases are remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
(Shri Gajanan Prasana Adiwasi Majoor Kamgar Sahkari Sanstha) 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in the same terms.
Order pronounced in open court on 23.09.2025 as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.