Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days due to non-receipt of the CIT(A) order on the registered email address. The assessee became aware of the order through a routine check on the IT portal and took immediate steps to file the appeal. The Tribunal had to decide whether to condone the delay based on sufficient cause.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, specifically the non-receipt of the order on the registered email. The explanation provided by the assessee was found to be reasonable and bona fide. The Tribunal, invoking its discretion and following Supreme Court precedents, condoned the delay.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the 71-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. A secondary issue, which became academic, was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice under Section 148.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 68, 115BBE, 250, 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “DB” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2015-16, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the t, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the t, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. appeal without passing speaking order.
3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the 3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the 3. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in reopening assessment u/s assessing officer in reopening assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B . 147 r.w.s 144B by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 52,96,500/ of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 52,96,500/ of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 52,96,500/- on account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT account of unexplained credits u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961.
5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s.
5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s.
5. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions 147 r.w.s 144B may kindly be quashed and/or the additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the made by the assessing officer may please be deleted or the case may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with ase may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with ase may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) with appropriate directions directions 2. At the very threshold of hearing, the learned Counsel for the At the very threshold of hearing, the learned Counsel for the At the very threshold of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Registry has assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Registry has assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Registry has pointed out a delay of seventy pointed out a delay of seventy-one days in the filing one days in the filing of the present appeal. The learned Counsel, adverting to the affidavit placed on appeal. The learned Counsel, adverting to the affidavit placed on appeal. The learned Counsel, adverting to the affidavit placed on record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the record, submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] was never received on the assessee’s primary e received on the assessee’s primary e-mail addre mail address, namely metu52000@gmail.com metu52000@gmail.com, which stood duly declared in Form No. 35 , which stood duly declared in Form No. 35 at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. It was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the was further submitted that the assessee became aware of the passing of the said order only when his counsel, upon a routine passing of the said order only when his counsel, upon a routine passing of the said order only when his counsel, upon a routine verification of the appeal status on the Income Tax Department’s the appeal status on the Income Tax Department’s the appeal status on the Income Tax Department’s ITD portal, noticed that the appeal had been decided. Thereupon, ITD portal, noticed that the appeal had been decided. Thereupon, ITD portal, noticed that the appeal had been decided. Thereupon, immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any immediate steps were taken to file the present appeal without any avoidable delay.
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the is We have heard rival submission of the parties on the is We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant part the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant part the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The relevant part of the affidavit of the assessee is reproduced as under: of the affidavit of the assessee is reproduced as under: of the affidavit of the assessee is reproduced as under:
2) That is to state that my primary e 2) That is to state that my primary e-mail ID on the mail ID on the Income Tax portal is metu52000@gmail.com which was Income Tax portal is metu52000@gmail.com which was Income Tax portal is metu52000@gmail.com which was also duly mentioned also duly mentioned while filing Form No.
35. Further, I while filing Form No.
35. Further, I did not receive any email from Income Tax Department in did not receive any email from Income Tax Department in did not receive any email from Income Tax Department in regard to the CIT(A) order u/s. 250 being passed. regard to the CIT(A) order u/s. 250 being passed. 3) That I came to know about the order only when my 3) That I came to know about the order only when my 3) That I came to know about the order only when my Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, Counsel checked the status of the appeal on ITD Portal, randomly. I, therefore consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh omly. I, therefore consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh omly. I, therefore consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Hence the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of Hence the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of Hence the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge of the fact of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. knowledge of the fact of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. knowledge of the fact of dismissal of appeal by the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) as the order was never ser CIT(A)(NFAC) as the order was never served on e-mail mail address metu52000@gmail.com. It was served on address metu52000@gmail.com. It was served on address metu52000@gmail.com. It was served on another e-mail address of insclient mail address of insclient- jma@yahoo.in. 4) From the above facts, it is clear that there is no delay 4) From the above facts, it is clear that there is no delay 4) From the above facts, it is clear that there is no delay in filing the appeal as I was required to receive the in filing the appeal as I was required to receive the in filing the appeal as I was required to receive the appellate order on the mentione appellate order on the mentioned e-mail address in terms mail address in terms of mandate of Form of mandate of Form- 35. In case, the delay is construed, 35. In case, the delay is construed, it should be condoned as the delay in filing the appeal it should be condoned as the delay in filing the appeal it should be condoned as the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and I was prevented by sufficient was not intentional and I was prevented by sufficient was not intentional and I was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. 5) That therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pray to this Honorable Income Tax Appellate case, I pray to this Honorable Income Tax Appellate case, I pray to this Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: a. To condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal in a. To condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal in a. To condone the delay of 71 days in filing the appeal in and to extend the time for filing and to extend the time for filing the same inclusive and upto th the same inclusive and upto the date of filing the appeal; e date of filing the appeal; b. Also, that the case is a meritorious one and requires b. Also, that the case is a meritorious one and requires b. Also, that the case is a meritorious one and requires consideration to grant such other and further relief as consideration to grant such other and further relief as consideration to grant such other and further relief as deemed fit by Honourable Income Tax Appellate deemed fit by Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Tribunal 3.1 The power of this Tribunal to condone delay is well The power of this Tribunal to condone delay is well The power of this Tribunal to condone delay is well-recognised in law and may be exercised where the assessee demonstrates the in law and may be exercised where the assessee demonstrates the in law and may be exercised where the assessee demonstrates the existence of a sufficient cause sufficient cause preventing timely filing of the appeal. preventing timely filing of the appeal. The The The expression expression expression “sufficient “sufficient “sufficient cause” cause” cause” must must must receive receive receive a a a liberal liberal liberal interpretation to advance substantial justice rather than defeat it interpretation to advance substantial justice rather th interpretation to advance substantial justice rather th on mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its on mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its on mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its celebrated pronouncement in celebrated pronouncement in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], observed that when [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], observed that when [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], observed that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice and technical considerations are pitt substantial justice and technical considerations are pitt each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred, for the other cause cannot claim ascendancy. the other cause cannot claim ascendancy.
3.2 In the present case, we find the explanation of the assessee to In the present case, we find the explanation of the assessee to In the present case, we find the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by the facts on record. The be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by the facts on record. The be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by the facts on record. The delay arose not out of negligence or inaction, but from delay arose not out of negligence or inaction, but from delay arose not out of negligence or inaction, but from circumstances beyond the assessee’s control circumstances beyond the assessee’s control — namely, the non namely, the non- receipt of the order on the registered e receipt of the order on the registered e-mail address statutorily mail address statutorily declared in Form No.
35. Once knowledge of the order was gained, declared in Form No.
35. Once knowledge of the order was gained, declared in Form No.
Once knowledge of the order was gained, prompt action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, action was taken to institute the appeal. We are, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.
3.3 Accordingly, invoking our discretion under the law and guided Accordingly, invoking our discretion under the law and guided Accordingly, invoking our discretion under the law and guided by the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we by the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we by the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay of seventy it just and proper to condone the delay of seventy it just and proper to condone the delay of seventy-one days in filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for filing the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits.
On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee did not make any compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before make any compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before make any compliance either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, both the authorities have passed the the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, both the authorities have passed the the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, both the authorities have passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. parte qua the assessee.
4.2 Before us, the Ld. couns Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an el for the assessee has filed an additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment additional ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings, which being purely legal in nature and going to root of , which being purely legal in nature and going to root of , which being purely legal in nature and going to root of the matter, hence same is admitted for adjudication. the matter, hence same is admitted for adjudication. the matter, hence same is admitted for adjudication.
The learned Counsel for the asses The learned Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset, see, at the very outset, invited our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the invited our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the invited our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal & Others v. Union of India Rajeev Bansal & Others v. Union of India [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] and contended that, for the [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] and contended that, for the [[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)] and contended that, for the Assessment Year 2015 Assessment Year 2015–16, the limitation for issuance of notice for issuance of notice under the erstwhile provisions of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, under the erstwhile provisions of Section 148 of the Income under the erstwhile provisions of Section 148 of the Income 1961, had not expired as on 31st March, 2021. It was submitted 1961, had not expired as on 31st March, 2021. It was submitted 1961, had not expired as on 31st March, 2021. It was submitted that sufficient time was still available to the Department to initiate that sufficient time was still available to the Department to initiate that sufficient time was still available to the Department to initiate reassessment proceedings under reassessment proceedings under the unamended regime and, the unamended regime and, therefore, the relaxation provisions contained in the Taxation and therefore, the relaxation provisions contained in the therefore, the relaxation provisions contained in the Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (“TOLA”) were not attracted to the said assessment year. (“TOLA”) were not attracted to the said assessment year. (“TOLA”) were not attracted to the said assessment year.
5.1 The learned Counsel further poi The learned Counsel further pointed out that the impugned nted out that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 26th July, 2022, under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the under the amended provisions of the Act. However, in terms of the new law, the outer limit for initiation of reassessment proceedings new law, the outer limit for initiation of reassessment proceedings new law, the outer limit for initiation of reassessment proceedings extended only up to 31st Mar extended only up to 31st March, 2022, i.e., within six years from ch, 2022, i.e., within six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice dated 26th July, 2022 stood issued clearly beyond the prescribed dated 26th July, 2022 stood issued clearly beyond the prescribed dated 26th July, 2022 stood issued clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was thus void ab initio. Reliance was period of limitation and was thus void ab initio. Reliance was period of limitation and was thus void ab initio. Reliance was further placed on the ju further placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Income Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel v. Income-tax Officer tax Officer [(2024) 176 taxmann.com 25 (Guj.)], wherein a similar view was taken. taxmann.com 25 (Guj.)], wherein a similar view was taken. taxmann.com 25 (Guj.)], wherein a similar view was taken.
5.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel f Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed or the assessee also filed a copy of the notices issued u/s 14 the notices issued u/s 148A(d) and 148 of the Act which are placed and 148 of the Act which are placed on record.
5.3 We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration upon the rival We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration upon the rival We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration upon the rival submissions and have carefully examined the material placed on submissions and have carefully examined the material placed on submissions and have carefully examined the material placed on record. The controversy in question is no longer record. The controversy in question is no longer res integra res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal & Others (supra) has laid down, in clear and categorical terms, that the benefit of extended down, in clear and categorical terms, that the benefit of extended down, in clear and categorical terms, that the benefit of extended limitation under TOLA cannot be availed in respect of assessment limitation under TOLA cannot be availed in respect of assessment limitation under TOLA cannot be availed in respect of assessment years where, as on 31st March, 2021, the time for issuing notice years where, as on 31st March, 2021, the time for issuing notice years where, as on 31st March, 2021, the time for issuing notice under the erstwhile Section 148 had not expired. It was observed der the erstwhile Section 148 had not expired. It was observed der the erstwhile Section 148 had not expired. It was observed that, upon the coming into force of the amended scheme with effect that, upon the coming into force of the amended scheme with effect that, upon the coming into force of the amended scheme with effect from 1st April, 2021, the power to reopen stood governed strictly by from 1st April, 2021, the power to reopen stood governed strictly by from 1st April, 2021, the power to reopen stood governed strictly by the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Act. the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 o the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 o 5.4 In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid In the present case, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is manifest that for Assessment Year 2015–16, the decision, it is manifest that for Assessment Year 2015 decision, it is manifest that for Assessment Year 2015 limitation under the old law subsisted up to 31st March, 2021. limitation under the old law subsisted up to 31st March, 2021. limitation under the old law subsisted up to 31st March, 2021. Hence, the relaxation under TOLA was inapplicable. The case of the Hence, the relaxation under TOLA was inapplicable. The cas Hence, the relaxation under TOLA was inapplicable. The cas assessee, therefore, fell within the ambit of the amended law, assessee, therefore, fell within the ambit of the amended law, assessee, therefore, fell within the ambit of the amended law, wherein the maximum permissible period for issuance of notice was wherein the maximum permissible period for issuance of notice was wherein the maximum permissible period for issuance of notice was six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., up to 31st March, 2022. The notice under Section 148, having been 31st March, 2022. The notice under Section 148, ha 31st March, 2022. The notice under Section 148, ha issued on 26th July, 2022, is patently barred by limitation and issued on 26th July, 2022, is patently barred by limitation and issued on 26th July, 2022, is patently barred by limitation and without authority of law. without authority of law.
5.5 We also derive fortification for this view from the judgment of We also derive fortification for this view from the judgment of We also derive fortification for this view from the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Jaysukh Gobalbhai Savalia v. Jaysukh Gobalbhai Savalia v. Income-tax Officer (ITA No. 269/SRT/2025, A.Y. 2015 (ITA No. 269/SRT/2025, A.Y. 2015 (ITA No. 269/SRT/2025, A.Y. 2015–16), wherein, in an identical factual matrix, it was held that once the limitation in an identical factual matrix, it was held that once the limitation in an identical factual matrix, it was held that once the limitation under the unamended provision had not expired as on 31st March, under the unamended provision had not expired as on 31st March, under the unamended provision had not expired as on 31st March, 2021, TOLA could not be pressed into service to extend such 2021, TOLA could not be pressed into service to extend such 2021, TOLA could not be pressed into service to extend such limitation, and any notice issued beyond 31st March, 2022 would any notice issued beyond 31st March, 2022 would any notice issued beyond 31st March, 2022 would be non est in law.
5.6 Respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Respectfully following the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal & Others Rajeev Bansal & Others (supra) and the decisions (supra) and the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court cited hereinabove, we hold that the of the jurisdictional High Court cited hereinabove, we hol of the jurisdictional High Court cited hereinabove, we hol impugned reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated impugned reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated impugned reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice dated 26th July, 2022 are barred by limitation and, therefore, 26th July, 2022 are barred by limitation and, therefore, 26th July, 2022 are barred by limitation and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 148 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. 148 and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
In view of our finding on the additional ground, which goes to the In view of our finding on the additional ground, which goes to the In view of our finding on the additional ground, which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the other grounds root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the other grounds root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the other grounds raised on merits stand rendered purely academic and call for no raised on merits stand rendered purely academic and call for no raised on merits stand rendered purely academic and call for no adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.