Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), which arose from an assessment order passed by the AO. The appeal was filed beyond the limitation period by 46 days. The assessee requested condonation of delay, citing reasons such as the son handling the tax matters moving abroad and the appointed consultant's negligence.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the explanation provided. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking and did not decide the issue as per the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is liable to be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice?
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH “SMC”, RAJKOT
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIShri Samir Vinodray Makwana
सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. ARJUNLAL SAINI AM; Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, is directed against the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/JCIT(A)-6, Delhi, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short), dated 18.12.2017.
The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal is barred by limitation of 46 days. The assessee moved an affidavit for condonation of delay requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained the sufficient reasons stating that assessee was not conversant with accessing e-mail etc. Besides, the tax consultant appointed by the assessee did not take care of the A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana taxation matters of the assessee and the assessee`s son who used to handle the assessee`s taxation matters, has left to Singapore. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that ex- parte order passed by Ld.CIT(A) due to non-submission of relevant papers. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee filed an affidavit to explain sufficient cause and stated that such minor delay may be condoned.
However, Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of assessee for condonation of delay and stated that delay should not be condoned.
I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that his son who handled the assessee`s appeal has left to Singapore, therefore, assessee approached another Chartered Accountant to prepare Form No.36 and other papers and in this process such minor delay has occurred. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the affidavit as well the delay condonation, application, I am of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. I, accordingly, 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 contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the assessing officer may be granted to the assessee. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue submitted that there is no point to give second inning to the assessee and assessee`s appeal should be dismissed, as the assessee was negligent before both the lower authorities as he did not appear before both the lower authorities.
I have heard both the parties and note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and the A.Y 10-11 Sh. Samir V. Makwana