Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order dated 20.02.2024, which was delayed by 363 days. The assessee explained the delay as being due to the negligence of their previous consultant and their own lack of expertise in tax matters. The assessee claimed the delay was unintentional and occurred due to bona fide reasons.
Held
The Tribunal noted the delay and the assessee's explanation. While the Revenue refuted the claim, the Tribunal considered the affidavit's contents and found the reasons to be reasonable and bonafide. The delay was condoned, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the provided reasons, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH “SMC”, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 353 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee demonstrated the reasons which are duly supported with duly sworn affidavit and read as under: “A. That I am the Appellant in the above appeal and being fully conversant with the facts of the case, I am competent to affirm this affidavit.
B. That the assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed by the Learned Assessing Officer on 20.12.2019, and thereafter, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, under Section 250 of the Act was uploaded on the Income Tax Portal on 20.02.2024. That the due date for filing Appeal was within 60 days from receipt of the aforesaid order i.e. 20.04.2024.
C. That the Appellant has filed appeal on 18 April 2025. Thus, there has been a delay of 363 days in filing the Appeal by the Appellant.
Sufficient Cause explaining the delay in filing the Appeal D. That the delay in filing the appeal is attributable to bona fide and reasonable circumstances beyond my control, which are explained as follows:
E. That I am engaged in the business of fruit trading at Kalamna Mandi, Nagpur, and I am not well-versed with taxation procedures and digital interfaces of the Income Tax Department. I had entrusted the responsibility of filing and pursuing my income tax matters, including representation in appeal, to my erstwhile consultant Mr. Dawood Rao.
F. That the said consultant was responsible for handling the notices and communications from the Income Tax Department, including those related to appeal proceedings before the CIT(A), NFAC. However, he neither informed me about the notices issued by the appellate authority, nor about the eventual passing of the appellate order dated 20.02.2024. I was under the genuine impression that the appeal was being properly pursued by the consultant.
G. It was only upon receipt of recovery notices and telephonic calls from the Income Tax Department regarding the outstanding demand, that I came to know that an adverse appellate order had already been passed and demand had been raised. Upon this discovery, I immediately contacted a new consultant, who, upon perusal of the income tax portal, informed me about the appellate order.
H. That I thereafter engaged Advocate Shri Abhay N. Agrawal to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. Due to the time taken in retrieving records, coordinating with the previous consultant, preparing the necessary documents, and drafting the appeal, there has been an inadvertent delay in filing the present appeal.
I. That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. I have always been desirous of contesting the additions made in the assessment order and had no malafide motive. I humbly submit that the lapse is unintentional and occurred due to complete reliance on the erstwhile consultant, who failed to discharge his professional responsibility.
J. That I am a small businessman and layperson in taxation laws. I solely depend on professional advice for my compliances and had no reason to believe that my consultant had not informed me of such a serious order.
K. That the delay caused has not resulted in any undue benefit to me, nor does it prejudice the interests of the Department. On the contrary, non-condonation of the delay would lead to grave injustice and denial of a legitimate right of appeal.
L. In view of the above bona fide and reasonable cause, I pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
Hence, there is an unintentional delay in filing the appeal before your Honour. By delaying the filing of appeal, no undue benefit or advantage is taken by the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the assessee wishes to challenge the assessment order passed by the learned CIT(A) by way of appeal filed before your Honour with a request for condonation of delay.
In view of this, it is prayed that the delay of 363 days may kindly be condoned in order to render the justice.”
Though the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee on the reason that the Assessee has failed to file any substantive material in order to substantiate his contention qua delay, however, not the contents of the affidavit reproduced above.
Considering the reasons stated by the Assessee, as reasonable, bonafide and unintentional for just and proper decision of the case and for equitable relief, the delay is condoned, however, subject to deposit of Rs. 11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
Coming to the merits of the case, it appears from the impugned order that though the Assessee challenged the assessment order dated 20.02.2019 u/s 144 of the Act whereby the addition of Rs.25,98,000/- being unexplained u/s 69 of the Act has been made, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording 4 opportunities, eventually made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained circumstances dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non- prosecution and in limine but not on the merits of the case by independent findings and thus considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality 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, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.06.2025.