Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed late by 135 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving an electronic alert for the order, personal health issues, and delays in seeking legal counsel. The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause.
Held
The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order confirming an addition of Rs. 1,02,13,091/-. The assessee sought to set aside this order. While the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-representation before the CIT(A), they granted one more opportunity in the interest of justice.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 143(3) of the Act, 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 06.06.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2018. I.T.A. No.: 701/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Rani Sati Textiles.
The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 135 days. An affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under:
“01. That the Deponent Mr. Raj Kumar Tulsyan is the managing partner of the firm, Shree Ranisati Textiles, and hence is fully conversant of the facts deposed below:
That the deponent has never received any alert through SMS that an order has been passed by Commissioner (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 06/06/2024. 03. That appeal before Honourable ITAT was to be filed by 05/08/2024. 04. That deponent was served with the CIT (A) order u/s 250 dated 06.06.2024 electronically on Income Tax Portal. No email, SMS Alert or physical communication was made regarding the said order which would have alerted the Deponent to react in a timely manner. The Deponent could not check the Income Tax Portal on time as he was not aware that such a notice has been issued and is also suffering from fatal decease i.e. cancer in prostate gland and has gone surgery for twice in 2023 & beginning of 2024. Only upon late learning of the matter, the Deponent sought legal counsel on 11.12.2024 and the time lapsed in gathering of material information and preparation of the memorandum of appeal caused further delay.
That the deponent will file the appeal manually on ITAT office at Patna
That in this way there is a delay of only 127 days for which an application as per Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been filed along-with memorandum of appeal.
That delay in filing the appeal is because of electronic service of order for which no intimation/alert message was received by the deponent that could have enabled him and also his poor health owing to fatal decease i.e. cancer in prostate gland to react sooner coupled with delay in seeking legal counsel and drafting of grounds of appeal after gathering relevant information. For this deponent cannot be held responsible.”
Considering the affidavit for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. I.T.A. No.: 701/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Rani Sati Textiles.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,02,13,091/- relating to excess stock. Hence, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue to his file for adjudication afresh. On perusal of the records, we find that there was non-representation before the Ld. CIT(A) and without presentation before the Ld. CIT(A), the evidences cannot be considered by the Tribunal.
The assessee, despite being provided sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), did not present himself in the appellate proceedings and therefore, cannot agitate for violation of the principles of natural justice. However, we are of the view, that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Bihar State Legal Services within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Ld. CIT(A). Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th April, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 07.04.2025 I.T.A. No.: 701/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Rani Sati Textiles. Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:
Shree Rani Sati Textiles, Shyam Mandir Road, Sutapatty, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, 842001. 2. ACIT/DCIT, Cir-2, Muzaffarpur.
CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi.
CIT-
CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna.
Guard File. //// By order