Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 648 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the CIT(A) order being served on an employee's email ID and the employee failing to communicate it. The assessee hired a new CA who informed them of the order in September 2025, and the appeal was filed on October 9, 2025.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 648 days, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the Legal Aid Authority, Delhi High Court. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and for non-prosecution, and set aside the order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the CIT(A) order, passed ex-parte, requires re-adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) in Appeal no. CIT(A), Delhi – 1/10499/2018-19 dated 12.10.2023. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle 3(1), New Delhi for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.12.2018.
At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is bared by limitation by 648 days. As per assessee, the order of the CIT(A), which is dated 12.10.2023 was communicated to the assessee on 12.10.2023 itself. The assessee filed the condonation application stating the reasons that the contact details on the Income Tax Portal were that of assessee’s employee namely Manoj Kumar who was working as Accounts Manager. He stated that Mr. Manoj Kumar’s phone and email id was filed in Form No. 35 and therefore, it was served only on the email id of Sh.
Manoj Kumar. The point highlighted by the Ld. Counsel that the order passed by the CIT(A) is an exparte and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and that also for non-prosecution simplicitor. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Manoj Kumar has not communicated about the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly when they have hired one Chartered Accountant, Vinay D Nandan and Associates, they informed the assessee about the order passed by the CIT(A) and that also in September, 2025. Thereafter, the appeal was prepared and filed accordingly on 09.10.2025. Ld. Counsel for the assessee now before us, contended that this is a reasonable cause as the assessee was not aware about the order passed by NFAC, hence, the delay may be condoned which is a bonafide delay and beyond the control of the assessee. When these facts were confronted to Ld. Sr. DR, he objected the condonation of delay and stated that the said order was served on the email id given by the assessee i.e. email id of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Accountant of the assessee, hence, the mistake lies on the part of the accountant of the assessee which indirectly is attributable to the assessee.
After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts of the case and reasons given in condonation application, we are of the view that prima facie assessee could make out the case of condonation of delay, being a long delay of 640 days, there is some casualness on the part of the assessee also. Hence, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal subject to the condition that assessee will pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to be paid to the “Legal Aid Authority, Delhi High Court, Delhi” within 15 days of the receipt of this order and will file a copy of receipt with the Assistant Registrar (Judicial), ITAT, Delhi Benches, Delhi and also with the Ld. CIT(A) at the start of hearing before the CIT(A). In terms of above, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee.
From the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, it is noted that the order of CIT(A) is an exparte and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal simplicitor for non- prosecution citing few of the case laws in para 5.1 & 5.2 of his order. Ld. CIT(A) 2 | P a g e is duty bound to decide the appeal on merits, but he failed to do so, hence, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remit back the issues to his file for fresh adjudication, after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.