Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the Ld.CIT(A) without condoning a delay of 106 days. The delay was attributed to the accountant's post-Covid-19 complications, specifically a paralytic stroke, which caused the assessee to be unaware of the assessment orders until much later.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. Given the circumstances leading to the delay and the fact that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity at the assessment stage, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the assessment for de novo assessment by the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal of appeals by the Ld.CIT(A) for non-condonation of delay is justified, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250(6)
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, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, all dated 24.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has ex-parte dismissed the appeals preferred by the assessee, without condoning the delay of ‘106’ days against the 2640 & 2641/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) M/s.Jay Granites Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 ::
assessment orders [dated 26.03.2022 & 29.03.2022] passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) for the captioned years. In other words, the Ld.CIT(A) hasn’t condoned the delay of ‘106’ days in filing of appeals before him and thereby, noted to have not admitted the appeals for hearing on merits.
1. We don’t countenance the impugned actions of the Ld.CIT(A) for the simple reason that if the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the AO, he has a statutory-right to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A); and then, the Ld.CIT(A) has to decide the grounds of appeal on merits by passing a speaking order as envisaged in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act.
1. 1. Having said so, we have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeals within the statutory time limit given under the statute. Before us, the assessee has explained the reasons which led to the delay in filing of appeal [before the Ld.CIT(A)] which we note was due to inaction on the part of the Accountant who was handling the cases due to post Covid-19 complications, [the Accountant got bed- ridden due to paralytic stroke]. Because of which, the assessee came to know about passing of the assessment orders dated 26.03.2022 & 29.03.2022 only on 05.08.2022 and the same was filed within three days i.e. on 10.08.2022. Having gone through the reasons recorded along with the materials supporting medical ailments of the Accountant, we condone the delay in filing of appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), subject to assessee , 2640 & 2641/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) M/s.Jay Granites Pvt. Ltd. remitting cost of ₹5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court within three (3) months of receipt of this order; and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO.
3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A). At this juncture, the Ld.AR of the assessee also brought to our notice that the AO has passed ex parte orders (best judgment assessment) without hearing the assessee and made huge addition without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the assessee pleads for one opportunity before AO by relying on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). The Ld DR opposes the plea and doesn’t want us to give one more innings to assessee.
In this regard, the Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents in support of its claim and therefore, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, and that assessee didn’t get proper opportunity to adduce evidence at the stage of assessment, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee and therefore restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.
For such action, we rely on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT supra. The assessee is expected to file all the 2640 & 2641/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) M/s.Jay Granites Pvt. Ltd. relevant documents in support of its claim without fail and AO to frame assessment in accordance to law.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.