Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. The assessee filed a condonation petition stating that the registered email address had technical issues, and they were unaware of the dismissal. The delay in filing the appeal was 801 days.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not receive notices due to technical issues with their email and there was no malafide intention. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 801 days and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to technical issues with the registered email address leading to non-receipt of notices.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA SMC BENCH, PATNA
Before: S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & RAJESH KUMAR
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 20.2.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Patna-2/10110/2016-17 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15.
Shri Sujay Sen, ld. AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Aswani Kumar, ld. Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 4
The appeal is time barred by 801 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 30.6..2025, stating that the assessee did not receive notices issued by NFAC between 2020 to 2022, as the registered email address (khatrinarendra 302@gmail.co) faced technical issues, and no hard copy of notices were also received. It was submitted that the assessee was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, there was delay of 801 days. It was submitted that there was no malafide intention to cause delay in filing the appeal. It was prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
In reply, ld. Sr DR did not object to the prayer of ld. AR of the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The contention of ld. AR is that the email address of the assessee was not functional and, therefore, notice of hearing issued by the ld. CIT(A) was not responded. Even if there was no hard copy of notice issued to the assessee. By delaying the appeal, the assessee would not get any benefit rather he will suffer financial as well as legal complications. In view of above, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the due date and, accordingly, condone the delay of 801 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.
P a g e 2 | 4
A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the claim with documentary evidences and submissions, ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without going into the merits of the case. Before us, ld AR undertakes that the assessee will cooperate the proceedings, if the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 01/09/2025.