Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) dated 30.09.2024 for AY 2017-18, which confirmed additions of Rs. 5,90,000/- under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 342 days, which the assessee attributed to not receiving the CIT(A)'s order due to an old email address of the previous counsel on the Income Tax Portal and a subsequent change of counsel.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 342-day delay, finding sufficient cause due to the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A) order and lack of effective representation. As the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Validity of ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without effective representation; Confirmation of additions under Section 69A and 115BBE without merits.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Addl/JCIT Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- 8, Delhi dated 30.09.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed being illegal.
2. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,90,000/- u/s 69A without going through the income shown as per the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and income shown in the earlier years also therefore the order of CIT deserves to be quashed being illegal.
3. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,90,000/- U/S 115BBE of the Income Tax Act which is not permissible as per the present facts of the case.
Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Ld. CTT(Appeals) has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and therefore deserves to be declared a nullity.
2. The present appeal is barred by limitation by 342 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. The Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application for condonation of delay and relied upon the contents of the accompanying affidavit. It was submitted that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30.09.2024, as the email address of the previous Ld. counsel continued to be reflected on the Income Tax Portal. It was further submitted that, upon coming to know of the said order, the assessee decided to change the counsel and accordingly updated the credentials on the Income Tax Portal. Thus, the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee, and the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause” from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the submissions of the assessee and contended that the assessee cannot take advantage of his own negligence. It was submitted that no “sufficient cause” has been shown for condonation of such an inordinate delay and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
4. Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties. It is the case of the assessee that the impugned order was not received within time. The appellant came to know about the said order only when he contacted his Ld. counsel. Considering the fact that there was no representation before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the order has been passed ex parte, the reasons stated for the delay are found to be beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in Page 3 of 4 filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate, contended that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), as there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee at the appellate stage. It was further submitted that a reasonable opportunity may be granted to the assessee to explain his case on merits.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission and supported the orders of the lower authorities.
Heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there is no finding on merits by the Ld. CIT(A), as the impugned order has been passed ex parte against the assessee. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed not to seek adjournment without any reasonable cause. The grounds raised in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2026.