Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 53 days. The assessee claimed that the delay was due to not receiving communication regarding the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and a change in tax consultants. The assessee further argued that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity to present their case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee and a reasonable cause for the delay was established. The Tribunal also held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the impugned order was passed ex-parte without effective opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
51 of the Limitation Act of 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI ARUN KHOPDIA
Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 30/07/2025 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2021-22.
2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of 53 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. In support of the petition for condonation of delay, assessee has furnished following affidavit:-
***This space is left blank intentionally. P.t.o.***
I.T.A. No. 7554/Mum/2025
1. I.T.A. No. 7554/Mum/2025 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.
1. 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:-
1. “The 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. 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.
1. 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.
On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte. He submitted that the assessee did not receive the notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate
Authority on the email ID mentioned in Form No. 35 and, therefore, was prevented from making effective compliance before the Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that due to lack of proper opportunity, the assessee could not place the relevant evidences on record. The Ld. AR thus prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all issues in the light of evidences available with the assessee.
3.1. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, though unable to controvert the factual submissions made by the Ld. AR, objected to the remand of the matter.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides and considered the material available on record.
Considering the principles of natural justice and the fact that the impugned order was passed ex parte without effective opportunity to the assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after duly considering the evidence and documents that may be furnished by the assessee and after calling for, if necessary, a remand report from the Ld. AO. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings.