Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-representation. A delay of 256 days occurred in filing the subsequent appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee explained the delay by citing the partners' lack of knowledge regarding taxation and English, and a tax practitioner's subordinate failing to track notices and portal updates.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A), and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This restoration was subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the ITAT; validity of an ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) due to non-representation.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar
आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 27/08/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
2. The assessee, in this appeal, has raised the following ground of appeal:
2 “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, merely on the technical ground of (bona-fide) non-response to the notices he may have issued. He did this without even going through the contents of the statement of fact, which was forming part of the appeal memo and without even calling for the requisite details as mentioned therein at least from the AO.”
There is a delay of 256 days in preferring the present appeal before this tribunal. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons for delay. The contents of which for the shake of ready reference are reproduced as under:
“ Prayer for condonation of delay of over eight months in filing of Appeal
1. Vide this application, forming part of the appeal memo in prescribed Form No. 36, the Appellant is praying for condonation of the delay in filing the underlying appeal, it is placed on record that there is a technical delay of over eight months in filing this appeal, if the same is reckoned from the date on which the order of the first appellate authority was passed, presuming that the same was uploaded on the portal on the same day. It is further placed on record that since this technical delay is for the bona-fide and legitimate reasons as narrated herein below and relying on the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. as cited elsewhere (which has been consistently followed in several subsequent judicial pronouncements of different High Courts and Tribunal Benches), this delay is required to be condoned so as to decide the ground taken in the appeal on its independent merits.
In the backdrop of what is stated above, the Appellant places on record that the partners of the Appellant are not having knowledge of laxation or of English language. They do not have knowledge of computer hardware and software, email operations etc. either. As a result of this fact, the total dependence on the matters relating to tax compliances has always been on the professional, whose services are being retained on regular basis. To be precise, it is placed on record that in so far as the filing of the returns of income. verifying the portal for ascertaining as to whether the notices are issued by the concerned authorities etc., are concerned, the said task has been handled by Shri Ramniklal D. Sojitra, holding PAN AOIPS9997Q. Aadhar No 925660588556, an independent tax practitioner based in Ahmedabad He was Mahadev Infracon vs. DCIT Asst.Year : 2016-17
3 even having access to the email address, so that he can keep track inter-alia of the appeal related matters that was pending before the first appellate authority at the relevant point of time.
3 From Insight, it is now realized that Shri Ramniklal D. Sojitra had handed over the task of verifying the portal and checking the e-mails to his subordinate, who presumably failed in doing so for quite some time. A sworn affidavit of this tax consultant is attached herewith in support of the fact.
4 In view of what is stated above, the Appellant could not represent its case in response to the hearing notices that may have been issued by the office of the first appellate authority attached to NFAC. For the same reason, when the ex-parte Appellate Order was passed by the first appellate authority. dismissing the appeal, the same did not reach the Appellant on time and it could not thus file appeal their against within the statutory time limit either. The Appellant in fact came to know about the appeal having been dismissed ex-parts only a few days back and the appeals is being filed almost immediately thereafter.
In view of what is stated above and in order to impart justice, it is prayed that the bona fide delay of over ether months in filing this appeal may please be condoned and the appeal may please be admitted for adjudication of the ground involved, on merit.
6 Reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio of the direct judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katji, as reported at (1987) 1987.com 1072 wherein has been held that the law should be applied in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice”.
The aforesaid application is supported with the affidavit of the concerned tax consultant. Ld. AR of the assessee has further referred to the above submission to state that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), under the circumstances, is an ex-parte order due to the non-representation of the Mahadev Infracon vs. DCIT Asst.Year : 2016-17
4 assessee. He has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
5. Considering the above submission, we are of the view that the interests of Justice will be well served if the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A), however subject to payment of reasonable costs. We accordingly, condone the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) subject to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will furnish the evidence of deposit of the said amount before the Ld. CIT(A), thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) will decide the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 26/02/2026.