Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT with a significant delay of 495 days, citing the negligence of their tax consultant. The original assessment and subsequent appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) were completed ex-parte due to the assessee's failure to appear and respond to notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding no mala fide intent on the part of the assessee, and decided to remand the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. However, the assessee was directed to pay costs for each assessment year.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the significant delay in filing the appeal, and whether to set aside ex-parte orders and remand the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeals filed by assessee arises out of order passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] even dated 09/04/2024 for AYs 2014-15 & 2017-18.
At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that, appeal has been filed by assessee before this Tribunal with a delay of 495 days. The assessee has furnished an application seeking condonation of delay wherein it is submitted that, assessee’s consultant used to look after the tax compliances on whose e-mail id the order of NFAC was delivered. However, the consultant did not take any action nor advised the assessee to file any appeal against the impugned order, causing the inadvertent delay in finalizing the appeal filed before this Tribunal.
1. Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust It is submitted that, there was no deliberate intention to cause any delay as that the assessee has a good case on merits. The Ld.AR has thus prayed for the appeal to be decided on merits of the case.
1. 2.1. The Ld. DR submitted that, assessee consistently failed to represent itself before the authorities below, despite being afforded multiple opportunities. It was contended that, statutory notices and communications were duly issued by Ld.CIT(A)/AO to the e-mail id intimated by assessee in Form 35/Income-tax Portal respectively. The Ld.DR thus submitted that, non-appearance and failure to furnish response by assessee were attributable solely to its conduct.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before us.
1. There is a delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. We 3. have carefully considered the explanation placed on record for such delay, as well as the overall conduct of the assessee. It is a matter of record that the assessee did not diligently represent itself before the authorities below and failed to respond to statutory notices issued to the e-mail address furnished on the Income-Tax portal. However, there is no material on record to indicate any mala fide intent or deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to abuse the appellate process. The delay appears to be attributable to negligence and lack of due care rather than to any design to gain an undue advantage. It is a settled principle of law that procedural lapses should not ordinarily defeat substantial justice and that matters should, as far as possible, be adjudicated on merits.
The Ld.AR submitted that the assessment in the present case was completed by passing an ex parte order, as the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued during the course of the assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that even before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeals were disposed of ex parte, owing to continued non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The Ld.AR submitted that, as a consequence thereof, the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the authorities below and the issues involved could not be adjudicated on merits. It was therefore pleaded that, in the interest of justice, the appeals may be remanded to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh adjudication on merits, by granting the assessee one final opportunity of being heard.
4.1. Having considered the above undisputed facts, and while condoning the delay, we are also mindful of the conduct of the assessee. In order to balance the equities and to ensure due diligence in future proceedings, we consider it appropriate to levy costs of ₹10,000/- for each assessment year under consideration on the assessee. The assessee is directed to deposit the said costs with the State Legal Aid Authority and to furnish an affidavit evidencing payment of the costs before the Ld.AO, with a copy thereof placed on record.
4.2. Subject to payment of the aforesaid costs, the appeals are remanded to the file of the Ld.AO for de novo consideration, in Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust accordance with law, after affording the assessee proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The Ld.AO shall carry out necessary verification in respect of the evidences furnished by the assesse in accordance with law. The Ld.AO shall pass a speaking order uninfluenced by the earlier orders, which are set aside for this limited purpose.
4.3. It is further made clear that, in the event of failure on the part of the assessee either to deposit the costs as directed or to cooperate or diligently prosecute the proceedings before the Ld.AO, the Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, including completion of the assessment on the basis of material available on record, without granting any further indulgence.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07/01/2026