Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for AYs 2015-16 and 2018-19. The appeals were filed with a delay of 141 days. The assessee's counsel explained that the delay was due to not receiving the hard copy of the PCIT's order and not being aware of the proceedings, as notices were not served.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 141 days, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's order was passed ex-parte as the assessee could not appear and submit required documents due to non-service of notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned and whether the PCIT's ex-parte orders should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld.AR ""यथ" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM By way of these two appeals, assessee has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Jamnagar [in short ‘Ld.PCIT’], under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2018-19, both dated 17.11.2023.
These two appeals filed by the assessee, are barred by limitation by 141 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition of condonation of delay filed before the Bench, in respect of these two appeals, are similar and identical. Therefore, we & 433/Rjt/2024 (AYs 15-16 & 18-19) Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. have taken into account a sample copy of petition for condonation of delay, which is filed by the assessee, in ITA No.428/RJT/2024, for assessment year 2015-2016.
The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee had not received the hard copy of the order of Ld.PCIT, on time and the appeal before Tribunal was to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order of ld.PCIT, that is, on 17.01.2024. As soon as, the assessee obtained copy of order, then after, assessee took appropriate steps to file appeal before the Tribunal and this process has resulted into delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Since, the order of Ld.PCIT was not delivered to assessee, therefore, such delay has occurred, which may kindly be condoned.
On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay and stated that assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, therefore, delay in both the appeals should not be condoned.
We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that the order of the ld.PCIT was not delivered in physical form to the assessee, and even notices issued by the ld. PCIT, during the revision proceeding, were not served on the assessee. Therefore, this delay of 141 days in filing the appeal (each appeal) is neither intentional nor deliberate. We have gone through the petition for condonation of delay, and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee. We note that the reasons given in the affidavit for condonation of delay, was convincing, and the reason would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing these appeals. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee. Considering the above facts and ITA Nos. 428 & 433/Rjt/2024 (AYs 15-16 & 18-19) Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
circumstances of the cases, as narrated above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the effective delay of 141 days and admit both the appeals of the assessee for adjudication on merit.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that since in these two appeals of assessee, (vide for A.Y 2015-16 and appeal in A.Y. 2018-19), during proceedings u/s 263 before Ld.PCIT, assessee could not appear and could not submit required submission and details before him. Therefore, Ld.PCIT have passed ex- parte orders in both appeals. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that had the assessee filed required details and documents, before Ld.PCIT, he would have dropped the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that required documents and evidences could not be produced before Ld.PCIT, as the assessee was not aware about the proceedings going on u/s 263 of the Act, before Ld.PCIT and the assessee has not received any information or notices from the Ld.PCIT. Therefore, assessee could not submit any details and documents before Ld. PCIT. Therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead these two cases before Ld.PCIT.
On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR of the Revenue did not have any objection, if both these appeals, are remitted back to the file of Ld.PCIT for fresh adjudication.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. We note that the during proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, before Ld.PCIT, assessee could not appear and could not file the required documents and evidences, as the relevant notices issued by Ld.PCIT were not served on the assessee. Since, the notices of Ld.PCIT were not served on the assessee and therefore, assessee was not aware about such proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, ITA Nos. 428 & 433/Rjt/2024 (AYs 15-16 & 18-19) Jayhind Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.