Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT, which were time-barred by 174 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to a change in Principal and the non-receipt of orders from the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for not being maintainable due to the delay.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the submissions and relying on the Apex Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., condoned the delay of 174 days. The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional and occurred due to sufficient cause.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT should be condoned on sufficient cause being shown?
Sections Cited
Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
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: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR
O R D E R Per Bench The present appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 23/08/2024 in Appeal Nos.NFAC/2012-13/10166277, NAFC/2013-14/10166580, NFAC/2105- 16/10166581, NFAC/2016-17/10166582 passed for Assessment Years 2013- 14, 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, respectively.
P a g e 1 | 5
All these appeals are time barred by 174 days. The assessee has filed condonation petitions supported with affidavits stating that although the appeals were to be filed within sixty days from the date of order of ld CIT(A) i.e 23.8.2024, but on account of transfer of the then Principal in the month of July, 2024, whose mobile number was registered for communication, the order of the ld CIT(A) was not known to the appellant. Further, the new Principal could not know about the hearing notice and in absence of any compliance, the ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeals. The said orders were not received in e-mail of the College or it may be in spam folder, for which, the present Principal could not know about the passing of the order. Only when the Assessing Officer contacted the Principal on 22.4.2025 for compliance of the penalty notice, the Principal contacted the counsel and filed the appeals, for which, there was delay of 174 days. It was prayed that the delay was caused due to sufficient cause and unintentional, same may be condoned.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the condonation petitions, we are satisfied that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the appeals within the stipulated period. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 174 days in all the appeals and admit for hearing.
At the time of hearing, ld AR of the assessee submitted that the appeals filed before the ld CIT(A) were delayed by 130 days, 138 days, 138
P a g e 2 | 5 days and 137 days for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18. The common reasons given by the assessee regarding delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A), which are extracted at page 4 of the order, as under:
The ld CIT(A) did not condone the delay finding the reasons not plausible and accordingly, dismissed the appeals as not maintainable. It was submitted by ld AR the delay in filing the appeals before the ld CIT(A) be condoned and matter be restored to the file of ld CIT(A) for readjudication.
P a g e 3 | 5
In reply, ld Sr DR opposed the prayer of ld AR of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has failed to explain “sufficient cause” for delay in filing of appeals before the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions. The CIT(A) has dismissed appeals of the assessee in limine as the same were filed beyond limitation. Undisputedly, the first appeal filed by the assessee was time barred by approximately 130 days approximately. We have examined the reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing of appeals before the First Appellate Authority. After examining the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeals was not intentional or for want of inaction on the part of the assessee/appellant.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.
In light of facts of the case and the law expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, impugned orders of ld CIT(A) are set aside and the appeals are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on P a g e 4 | 5 merits after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee/appellant, in accordance with law.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 2/7/2025.