Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) and JCIT(A). The primary issue was the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted condonation petitions explaining the delay as being unintentional and due to the faceless regime where notices were not received.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reasons for delay were plausible and not false, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned. The Tribunal noted that in some cases, the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed appeals for non-representation, and in others, the JCIT(A) did not condone the delay. The Tribunal remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, providing the assessee an opportunity to raise all pleas.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal can be condoned. Whether the appeals should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
249(3) of the Income Tax Act, Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 15,2,2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10085/2017-18 passed by JCIT(A)-1, Pune for assessment year 2008-09, order dated 31.7.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack./10280/2015-16, 30.4.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A),Cuttack/10091/2016-17, 16.5.2023 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10430/2016-17, 24.5.2024 passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and in Appeal No.CIT(A),Cuttack/10849/2019-20, dated 29.1.2025 passed by JCIT(A)-13, Mumbai in Appeal No.NFAC/2018-19/10188114 & 19.7.2024 passed 2 Cuttack Central Co.op.Bank Ltd.
by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. for the assessment years 2012-13,2013- 14,2014-15,2017-18,2019-20 & 2020-21, respectively.
2. Shri N.R.Biswsal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Ashim Kr Chakraborty, ld CIT DR and Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
At the outset, it is found that appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation as under: Asst. Year Delay 2008-09 511 2012-13 358 2013-14 450 2014-15 785 2017-18 419 2019-20 176 2020-21 358 4. The assessee has filed condonation petitions supported by affidavits stating the reasons that the assessee came to know only the appellate order already passed after getting the demand notice from the Jurisdictional Assessing officer. Then, the assessee verified the appellate orders being passed. No order has been received by e-mail. Since, no orders were received by the assessee, appeals could not be filed before the Tribunal, therefore, there were delay in filing the respective appeals as above. It was submitted that non-filing of appeals was un-intentional.
5. It was also submitted that the ld JCIT(A), NFAC have dismissed two appeals on the ground of delay in filing of appeals before them. The reasons given by the assessee for non-filing of appeals within the due date have not been accepted and the appeals were dismissed in limine. It was requested to condone the delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and the matter be 3 Cuttack Central Co.op.Bank Ltd. restored to his file for fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
6. In reply, ld CIT/Sr DR opposed the condonation petitions filed before the Tribunal as also supported the orders passed by ld CIT(A)/NFAC/JCIT(A), NFAC.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of impugned orders for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14,2014-15, 2017-18 & 2020-21, shows that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeals due to non- representation despite giving sufficient opportunities to substantiate the grounds of appeal
. For the assessment years 2008-09 and 2019-20, the ld JCIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed the appeals in limine.
8. The reasons stated in the condonation petitions that no order was received as stated by the assessee in the affidavit, seems to be plausible and not found to be false. Accordingly, the delay as stated above, in filing the respective appeals by the assessee is condoned and the appeals of the assessee are admitted for hearing.
9. In respect of dismissing the appeals filed by the ld JCIT(A) in limine on the ground of delay, we have gone through the reasons stated in the condonation petitions filed before the ld CIT(A). Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, provides powers to the ld Commissioner of Income Appeals to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. It has been used in Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 that whenever interpretation and construction before the Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the Hon’ble Courts were unanimous in their conclusion that the expression is to be used liberally. Reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 4 Cuttack Central Co.op.Bank Ltd. the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Othrs, (1987) 167 ITR 41 (SC), wherein, it has been held as under: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay.
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
It is sufficed to say that the Hon’ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice- oriented approach. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, the assessee runs a serious risk. In the instant case, the delay was attributable specifically due to faceless regime as the notices were sent through online only. Due to some reasons or other, the notice of hearing was not in the knowledge of the assessee, as stated in the condonation petition.
5 Cuttack Central Co.op.Bank Ltd.
In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the assessee in its averments has made out a clear case that there was sufficient cause being its control prevented from filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) in time. The assessee is diligent in its responsibility as the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal against the orders of the ld JCIT(A). We, accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeals before the ld JCIT(A) in both the assessment years under consideration and set aside the issues to the file of the ld CIT(A) as he has not applied his mind on facts on the merit of the issues. In other appeals, the ld CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeals for non- representation only and ld CIT (A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Therefore, we remit the issues to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will be liberty to raise any plea on merit for all the appeals. It is also noticed that the claim of provision for overdue interest for the assessment year 2008-09 was before the AO, which has not been considered. Therefore, this plea of the assessee is also to be considered while disposing the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 as per law.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 2/12/2025.