Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2017-18. There was a significant delay of 509 days in filing the appeal. The assessee cited reasons such as non-receipt of notices due to an old email ID, limited education, and lack of awareness until recovery proceedings were initiated.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's reasons for the delay were bonafide and unintentional. While condoning the delay, a condition was imposed for the deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to non-compliance, which was partly due to communication issues regarding email addresses.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 253(3) of the Act, 69A of the Act, 144 of the Act
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 03/10/2023 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.Y. 2017-18.
(Ashish Harish Parshionikar) 2. In the instant case, it is observed that there is a delay of 509 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has stated the following reasons for delay:- 2. Delay in Filing Appeal: The order of the CIT(A) was passed on 03.10.2023, and as per section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was required to be filed within 60 days, i.e., by 02.12.2023. However, the present appeal is being filed on 23.05.2025, resulting in a delay of 53 Bdays.
3. Reasons for Delay: The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but was due to circumstances beyond my control, as elaborated below: 3.1 Non-Receipt of Hearing Notices and CIT(A) Order: All communications, including hearing notices, and the CIT(A) order dated 03.10.2023, were sent to the email ID of my former accountant, who was engaged at the time of filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in February 2020. The accountant ceased to be associated with me shortly after the appeal was filed, and I was unaware that communications were being sent to his email ID. I do not have access to that email account, and the accountant did not inform me of any notices or the CIT(A) order. 3.2 Lack of Awareness Due to Limited Education: I am not well-educated and have limited familiarity with digital communication methods, such as email. I do not personally use or monitor email accounts, relying instead on professional assistance for tax-related matters. As a result, I was unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the passing of the order dated 03.10.2023. 3.3 Discovery Through Recovery Proceedings: I only became aware of the CIT(A) order and the dismissal of my appeal when the Income Tax Department initiated recovery proceedings. This was the first intimation I received regarding the adverse order, prompting me to seek professional assistance to review the matter and file the present appeal. 3.4 Efforts Post-Discovery: Upon learning of the CIT(A) order through the recovery proceedings, I immediately engaged a new tax consultant to obtain copies of the order, review the case, and prepare the appeal. The delay in filing was due to the time taken to retrieve records, understand the implications of the order, and draft the appeal, given the lapse of time and the change in professional representation.
4. No Willful Negligence: I submit that the delay was not due to any willful negligence or mala fide intent. The Hon'ble Supreme (Ashish Harish Parshionikar) Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays, especially when the delay is due to bona fide reasons and not deliberate.
Meritorious Case: The appeal raises substantial grounds challenging the additions of Rs. 10,93,500/- under section 69A and Rs. 7,48,611/- as deemed business income, the denial of TCS credit of Rs. 63,721/-, and the initiation of penalty proceedings. The assessment order under section 144 and the CIT(A)'s dismissal without adjudicating the merits are contrary to law and evidence, as the cash deposits were from legitimate business receipts of my liquor and food retail business, duly supported by sale registers and bank statements.
Prejudice to the Appellant: If the delay is not condoned, I will suffer irreparable loss, as the erroneous additions and tax demand of Rs. 13,29,816/- will stand, despite having a strong case on merits. Conversely, condoning the delay will not prejudice the Revenue, as it will only ensure a fair adjudication of the disputed issues.
7. Prayer: In view of the above, I humbly pray that the Hon'ble Tribunal: a. Condone the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal, considering the bona fide reasons stated herein. b. Admit the appeal for hearing on merits. c. Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper.”
On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative (DR) refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Considering the reasons for delay as substantiated with duly sworn affidavit, as genuine, bonafide and unintentional, and therefore, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, delay is condoned, however subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) in the Revenue Department under the ‘other head’, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.
(Ashish Harish Parshionikar) 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that though the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner has challenged the additions of Rs. 10,93,500/- u/sec. 69A of the Act on account of amount deposited in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization and Rs. 7,48,611/- of the Act (9% of Rs. 83,17,908/-) cash deposited on account of sale on liquor and food, by filing first appeal however despite of affording three opportunities, the Assessee eventually made no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and without going into the merits of the case. The Assessee during the course of hearing has demonstrated that Form 35 and the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner that the notices by the Ld. Commissioner were sent at the email ID i.e. accuret099@rediffmail.com, whereas the Assessee in Form 35 has mentioned email as ashishparshionikar361@gmail.com.
6. Thus, considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Thus, this case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
(Ashish Harish Parshionikar) 8. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued and file the relevant submissions/documents. It is clarified that in case subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 26.06.2025