Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the NFAC. There was a delay of 471 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, attributed to the demise of the assessee's tax consultant and subsequent non-receipt of hearing notices. The assessee sought condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause due to the demise of the tax consultant. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without deciding on merits, which is not in accordance with the statutory mandate.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay and setting aside of ex-parte order for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
(Assessment Year: 2020-21) Salma Sadiq Kantharia ITO-Ward 41(1)(4) A/06, 1st Floor, Shamsuddin Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C41-43, Andheri Kurla Road, Jari Mari Kurla, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Mumbai-400 072 Vs. G Block, BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra E, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. ANDPK 5832 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Piyush Chhajed & Shri Ayush Chhajed Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhari Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R
Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27.05.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2021-22.
Before we proceed to deal with the appeal, we notice that there is a delay of 471 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has sought condonation of delay by furnishing an Affidavit, explaining the reason for delay. It is the case of the assessee that in the appeal memo, in Form No. 35, the address of communication was that of assessee’s tax consultant, CA Niranjan R Shah. However, being an elderly person, suffering from prolonged illness,
Salma Sadiq Kantharia vs. ITO he passed away on 17.10.2024. It is submitted, the notices of hearing issued between September, 2023 and May, 2024, were served in the email-id of the deceased Chartered Accountant, hence, could not be complied. Therefore, the assessee not only went unrepresented before the first appellate authority, but there was delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, he requested for condonation of delay.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the affidavit of the assessee and the other materials on record, we are convinced that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Insofar as the appeal is concerned, the primary grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of the appeal, that too without deciding on merits.
Having considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we find that ld. First appellate authority has mentioned the chronology of proceedings before him. From the facts narrated, it can be seen that though various notices of hearing were issued to the assessee between the period 25.09.2023 to 04.05.2024, however, there was no compliance. Thus, ultimately, ld. first appellate authority proceeded to dismiss the appeal purely for non-compliance. So far as the issue of non-compliance before ld. First appellate authority is concerned, in our view, the reasons for such non-compliance stand fully explained before us. Even otherwise also a reading of the impugned order of ld. First appellate authority clearly demonstrates that he has not decided the appeal on merits, but has dismissed due to non-compliance. This, in our view, is not in accordance with the statutory mandate. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of ld. First appellate authority and restore the issues back to him for adjudication on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.