Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 09/10/2024. There was a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal, for which the assessee sought condonation. The reasons cited for the delay included delayed communication of the order due to a remote school location and the appellant's health condition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 96 days, finding reasonable cause. It was noted that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal decided to grant one opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to grant an opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer, given the ex-parte orders passed.
Sections Cited
Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO
The aforesaid appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 09/10/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2020–21.
2. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, I find that the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is also supported by Affidavit 28/01/2025, requesting the Bench for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The 2 Sudhir Gomaji Kukde ITA no.621/Nag./2024 reason for the delay in filing the appeal, as contained in the said affidavit, are as under:– “1. That the appellant has preferred the accompanying appeal under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 9TH Oct 2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC.
That there is a delay of 9 days in filing the said appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
3. The delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but was caused due to the following bona fide reasons: (a) Delayed Communication of the CIT(A) Order: The email address provided for correspondence with the Income Tax Department was managed by the accountant responsible for filing income tax returns for teachers of the school where the appellant is also a teacher. Since the school is situated in a remote area, there was a delay in bringing the CIT(A) order to the appellant's notice. The appellant became aware of the said order only after approximately 1.5 months, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. (b) Appellant's Health Condition: During the relevant period, the appellant suffered from health issues that further contributed to the delay in preparing and filing the appeal. Medical constraints limited the appellant's ability to act promptly on receiving the information regarding the CIT(A) order.
4. It is submitted that the delay caused is neither intentional nor due to negligence but due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.
It is a settled principle of law that procedural delays should not come in the way of rendering substantive justice. The appellant has a strong case on merits, and if the delay is not condoned, it will cause irreparable harm and prejudice to the appellant.
In view of the foregoing, the appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly: o Condone the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal; and o Pass such other orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”
After considering the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative and averments made in the affidavit, I am of the opinion that 3 Sudhir Gomaji Kukde ITA no.621/Nag./2024 the assessee is prevented in filing the appeal belatedly and we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Consequently, we condone the delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit.
4. During the course of hearing, while going through the order of the authorities below, I find that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer despite repetitive opportunities given by the Assessing Officer to enable the assessee to represent its case. However, the assessment order was passed ex-parte by making various additions. Even before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee chose not appear which resulted in passing ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.
5. Before me, the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and prayed that one opportunity may be granted by restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to enable the assessee to substantiate its case before the the Assessing Officer.
2. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A) and failed to furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).
3. I have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through order of the authorities below. I find that though the 4 Sudhir Gomaji Kukde ITA no.621/Nag./2024 Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by both the authorities below were ex-parte orders. Therefore, I am of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the case before the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is set aside and remit back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/02/2025