Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) against an intimation u/s 143(1) for AY 2010-11 was rejected due to a 12-year delay in filing. The assessee claimed non-receipt of the intimation until 2022 due to technical glitches, a contention contradicted by Form No.35. The CIT(A) found the condonation application lacked sufficient facts and an affidavit.
Held
The ITAT, acknowledging the possibility of technical glitches affecting intimation delivery (a matter even before the Supreme Court), granted the assessee a fresh opportunity. The assessee is directed to file a detailed application with an affidavit before the CIT(A) to properly explain the delay, after which the CIT(A) will consider the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.
Key Issues
Whether the 12-year delay in filing an appeal against an intimation under Section 143(1) should be condoned, given the assessee's claim of non-receipt due to technical glitches.
Sections Cited
143(1), 246A(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.05.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi-42 (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-42/10036/2009-10 arising out of the appeal before it against the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record. During the course of hearing, it transpired that the assessee has raised a ground that the CIT(A) has rejected the application for condonation of the delay in spite of there being reasonable cause. The ld. AR had submitted that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, was never served upon the assessee and, for that reason, till the time the assessee received the demand notice in 2022, the assessee was not aware. The ld. AR has submitted that there was some technical glitch due to which in certain period there were no service of the assessment orders.
The order of ld.CIT(A) shows that the delay was not condoned for the reason that in Form No.35, the assessee on own had admitted that the assessment order was passed on 25.02.2011 and on the same date the intimation was received. The ld. AR has, however, submitted it to be an inadvertent mistake and it was submitted that no intimation was served upon the assessee.
Further, during the course of hearing, it came up that the assessee while filing the application for condonation of the delay had, vide application dated 04.03.2023, sought condonation of the delay. The copy of this request letter to CIT(A) is available at pages 16 and 17 of the assessee’s paper book. We consider it appropriate to reproduce the application itself hereinbelow:-
After taking into consideration the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the application which was filed before the CIT(A) was not having sufficient facts to explain the delay of 12 years and a very general explanation was given. Further, the application was not supported with any affidavit also as observed by the CIT(A).
However, keeping in view the argument that there was some technical glitch leading to non-issuance and service of intimations in certain period for which even a PIL was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We consider it an appropriate case to give an opportunity to the assessee to file a detailed application along with affidavit and explain the reasons for the delay more illustratively to CIT(A) who shall consider the plea on merits and, thereafter, proceed in accordance with the law.