Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 366 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving physical notices or the appellate order, and that communications were sent to an email address not belonging to him.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had opted for email communication in Form No. 35 and had actively responded to notices electronically. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim of unawareness was not supported by evidence and indicated a negligent approach.
Key Issues
Whether there was a 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, given the assessee's participation in proceedings via email.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Majji Srinivasa Rao, (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 26.12.2023 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit, Page 1 of Majji Srinivasa Rao seeking admission of the belated appeal. The assessee has stated that he could not receive any physical copy of notice or the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, remained unaware of the disposal of the appeal. It is claimed that no physical copy of the order was served upon him and that the notices as well as the appellate order were communicated only to an email address and mobile number which did not belong to the assessee but to the person who had filed the appeal on his behalf. It was further submitted that the assessee is not well acquainted with online proceedings and came to know about the passing of the appellate order only when his Chartered Accountant noticed the same during December’2024 while filing her return of income. It was also stated that when it was informed by his chartered accounts regarding passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee was suffering from severe back pain and was advised bed rest. After improvement in his health, the assessee approached his counsel on 20.01.2025, and thereafter filed the present appeal. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and that there existed sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR invited our attention to Form No. 35 filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the assessee had expressly opted for service of communication through email. The Ld. DR further invited our attention to para nos. 4.2 and 4.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein it is recorded that notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee and the assessee had duly responded to such notices on 08.07.2022, 17.11.2022 and 21.10.2023, Page 2 of Majji Srinivasa Rao respectively. It was, therefore, submitted that the contention of the assessee that he was unaware of the proceedings or that the communications were sent to an unrelated person is factually incorrect. It was argued that when the assessee had been actively participating in the appellate proceedings through email, the plea of non-receipt of the appellate order is neither believable nor supported by any evidence. It was further submitted that the assessee has not produced any independent material to substantiate the alleged non-receipt of the order. It was contended that the delay is inordinate and has occurred due to a casual and negligent approach, and therefore the same does not deserve to be condoned.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that there is a delay of 366 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The primary explanation advanced by the assessee is that he did not receive notices or the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, we have gone through the para nos. 4.2 and 4.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect: “4.2 Notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued to the appellant to file submission/evidence/information/details sought in support of its grounds of appeal
1. 1. 1. 1. by 13.07.2022, 22.11.2022 & 26.10.2023. 4.3 In response, the submission/s of the appellant filed on 08.07.2022, 17.11.2022 & 21.10.2023 which are reproduced as below: x x x x”
5. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the assessee had responded to multiple notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)
Page 3 of Majji Srinivasa Rao through electronic mode on various dates. We have also gone through the personal information section of the Form No. 35, which is to the following effect:
On perusal of the above, we find that in Form No. 35, the assessee had opted for communication through email. Once the assessee has accepted electronic mode of service and has in fact participated in the proceedings through such mode, the plea that the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings or the passing of the appellate order cannot be accepted. Moreover, except for a bald assertion, no cogent evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was not received or that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause Page 4 of Majji Srinivasa Rao from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. It is well settled that while the expression “sufficient cause” deserves a liberal interpretation, such liberality cannot extend to cases of negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides. In the present case, the conduct of the assessee reflects a casual approach and failure to exercise due diligence. We are therefore of the considered view that the assessee has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we decline to condone the delay of 366 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st January 2026.