Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed 201 days late, due to a delay in receiving the order from the CIT(A) and a communication lapse with the tax consultant. The assessee claimed the delay was unintentional and beyond their control.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be neither intentional nor deliberate, and admitted the appeal for hearing on merit. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
सुनवाई क� तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 16/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 04.06.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 24.03.2023.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 201 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Learned AR for the assessee, explained the sufficient cause of delay, stating that the order of the CIT(A) was passed on 04.06.2024. Hence the appeal was to be filed by 04-08-2024. However, the appeal was actually filed on 20.03.2025, hence the appeal is late by 201 days. The appellant did not receive the order of ld. CIT(A). The appellant checked the site on 14.02.2025 for verifying whether the notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) or not, and noticed that no notices were issued by the ld CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings to the assessee. However, the notices were sent to the assessee`s Chartered Accountant, by ld CIT(A), and the Chartered Accountant did not verify or communicate the information to the appellant. The appellant prays that the delay was not deliberate and nor was the any intention to mislead and was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant therefore prays that the delay in filing be condoned.
On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay and stated that assessee’s appeal may be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. I note that the assessee did not have any knowledge of impugned order passed on 04.06.2024. It was stated that assessee had no intention in delaying the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the small delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. The assessee is not going to be benefited by filing the appeal late. The consultant on whom the appeal was outsourced could not inform about any of notice nor the fact regarding impugned order being uploaded on the portal was shared with the assessee, hence, the delay of 201 days in filing the appeal had occurred. I note that the order of the ld.CIT(A) was served on email-id of tax consultant and it was not communicated to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee whenever, he got the order physically, he immediately took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. Besides, there was mistake committed by the tax consultant of the assessee and therefore the assessee should not be penalized on account of mistake committed by his tax consultant. I note that this delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, in the interest of justice, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for hearing on merit.
The Ld.AR submitted on behalf of the assessee that there was no service of notices on the appellant and Ld. CIT(A) issued the notices on the e-mail id of the tax consultant but same was remained unserved an assessee. The Ld. Counsel requested that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to plead its case before Assessing Officer, as the assessee wants to submit more documents to prove its claim.
The ld. Sr-DR of the Revenue has submitted that ld. CIT(A) had given ample opportunities to the assessee but there was no response by the appellant, hence the ld. CIT(A) had no alternative but to pass an ex-parte order on the basis of materials available on record. However, the Ld.Sr-DR has not objected to the prayer of the appellant, if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer.
I have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is seen that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not submit details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A), as no notices were served on the appellant, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order citing various case law. I note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A), as notices for hearing were not served on the appellant. I also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of