Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 13/02/2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that, orders u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 16/03/2022 and 31/12/2021 against the Assessee in respect of Assessment Year 2017-
The Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 253 days and 239 days respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeal on delay in latches on 13/02/2025. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 13/02/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there were no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 253 days and 239 days respectively in filing the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.
We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the orders of penalty dated 16/03/2022 and 31/12/2021, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 253 days and 239 days respectively. As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that as explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that‘the company had been just returning from a financial crisis caused due to the pandemic. That the legal staff and other managerial personals had been changed from time to time. That in addition, during the relevant period, the Company had also been partly following work- work home policy. That due to the aforesaid reasons, the notices and other letters issued by the department had been unnoticed. Due to the same, there had been a minor oversight and the notices and other hearing notices were not received and conveyed to the management. That recently, on verification of all the income-tax matters pending before various authorities company realized that the present proceedings were missed by previous staff and company personnel.’ The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee without condoning the delay.
It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay.
In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.
Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 253 days and 239 days respectively in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2025