Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 233 days. The assessee claimed that they were unaware of the order passed by the CIT(A) and did not receive any notices, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee faced challenges in obtaining necessary documents and engaging a consultant due to inexperience and financial constraints.
Held
The tribunal acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal but noted that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause for the delay and there was no malafide intention. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the tribunal decided to condone the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 233 days in filing the appeal is condonable. Whether to set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remit the matter for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 28/01/2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’] for A.Y. 2017-18.
2. At the outset, it is noted that, there is a delay of 233 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee filed a petition for condonation and an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It is stated in the affidavit that the Assessee was not aware of the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and came to know about the same only on 08/07/2025. Immediately thereafter, the Assessee forwarded the notice to his consultant and it was realized that various notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) remained unresponded, resulting in the passing of an ex-parte order.
The Assessee has averred that he did not receive any of the notices issued by the office of the Ld.CIT(A) by email or post. It is further stated that being inexperienced in tax litigation and having no proper guidance, he faced difficulty in arranging the necessary documents and engaging a professional for filing the appeal. The affidavit also explains that there was delay in obtaining Form No. 35 from the previous consultant and in arranging the requisite challan amount due to financial constraints. After completing the formalities, the Assessee filed the present appeal, resulting in a delay of 233 days. The affidavit is extracted for ready reference:-
2.1. From the affidavit filed by the assessee, there does not arise any malafide intention on behalf of assessee for not filing the present appeals before this Tribunal.
2.2. In our view, the assessee has made out a reasonable cause for the delay that is caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. Nothing to establish any contrary intention has been filed by the revenue before this Tribunal. In our opinion there is a sufficient cause for condoning the delay as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions.
2.3. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:-
Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that : 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 2.4. Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals as it is not attributable to the assessee.
In any event, though the procedural law pertaining to the limitation has been drafted to construe it strictly, the fact remains that, considering such technicalities will not advance the cause of justice.
2.5. We take support from the observations of Justice Krishna Iyer wherein he has quoted at various occasion while dealing with technicalities that “any interpretation that alludes substantive justice is not to be followed and that substantive justice must always prevail over procedural technicalities”. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 has laid down a ratio of similar principles. Respectfully following the thoughts propounded by Late Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer, as well as various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on similar issues, we condone the delay caused in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal.
Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order due to non-appearance of the Assessee. In the interest of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the Assessee should be provided one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.