Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed late by 283 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, stating that notices from the CIT(A) proceedings were sent to an ex-employee's email address and were not forwarded. The assessee claimed to be unaware of these notices and the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) until their tax consultant discovered it later.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be convincing and constituting sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 280 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone of delay. The contents of petition for condonation of delay, are as follows;
“That all notices issued during the course of CIT(A) proceedings were sent onemail address: "jaydip.sky@gmail.com" (as reflected in E-filing portal), which pertained to one of the employees of the Appellant-society who had resigned from the Society on 12-11-2021. Thus, all notices were issued on the e-mail id of the ex- employee, who neither forwarded nor informed the Appellant about the issuance of the said notices. Thus, the Appellant was not aware about notices issued by the CIT(A) and also about the passing of order u/s 250 of the Act dated 27-09-2024. That the email id provided in the return of income filed for the year was"jaydip.sky@gmail.com and tax.adr@gmail.com" and that email id provided in E-filing Portal was "sspssmlbagasara@gmail.com". However, all notices u/s 250 were sent on email id of the ex-employee of the Appellant-society i.e. "jaydip.sky@gmail.com" and not on any other e-mail ids mentioned above. That thereafter, the appellant was also not aware about the passing of order u/s 250 dated 27-09-2024 by the Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC as it was not received on the updated e-mail id communicated by the Appellant on the E-filing portal i.e. on "sspssmlbagasara@gmail.com". That thereafter when the tax consultant of the Appellant logged into E-filing portal sometime in August 2025, he found that order u/s 250 of the Act has already been passed on 27-09-2024. That thereafter, the Appellant was advised by his tax consultant to approach a tribunal tax practitioner in Rajkot and decide further course of action. That thereafter it took quite some time in the process to decide and appoint a tax counsel appearing before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Rajkot. That thereafter all required documents were sent to Tribunal counsel in Rajkot who prepared the appeal memo and papers and signatures, payment of appeal fee was made and then the present appeal to the Hon'ble Tribunal was filed on 06/09/2025. It is humbly submitted that the delay of 283 days in filing the appeal took place for a sufficient cause, with no intention to make the delay and no latches on the part of the Appellant. Therefore, in view of above facts of the Appellant, it is prayed that since the aforesaid reasons constitute sufficient/reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, the delay may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and appeal may kindly be allowed to be admitted.”
Based on the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has sufficient cause that all notices during the appellate proceedings, were delivered on the e-mail-id of ex-employee, who did not forward the information/papers to the assessee, therefore, such delay has occurred and as the assessee explained the reasons for delay, therefore, delay should be condoned, in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that assessee has failed to explain sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, delay should not be condoned.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the affidavit gives me an impression of existence of mitigation circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. I note that the assessee has explained the sufficient cause to condone the delay and the reason explained in the petition for condonation of delay are convincing in nature, therefore, I condone the delay.
On merit, at the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not appear and file required documents and details before the Ld.CIT(A), and as a result, the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now the assessee is ready with the all required documents and details Sardar Patel Sarafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. which are to be submitted before the Ld.CIT(A), and hence matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue 4 afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025.