TRANSWORLD MUSLIM UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,BARBAR SHAH SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders, which arose from AO orders for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, initially passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the I.T. Act. The appeals before the Tribunal were delayed by 277 days, and prior to that, the appeals before the CIT(A) were also delayed by 91 and 201 days respectively, leading to their dismissal under section 249(3) without adjudication on merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's cumulative delay in filing appeals both before itself and the CIT(A), noting that the appeals before CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte and not adjudicated on merits. It imposed a token cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee for being a 'habitual defaulter' and remanded both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT should be condoned, and if the cases should be remanded for adjudication on merits despite procedural delays.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 249(3), 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the even dated orders of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, passed on 9th February, 2024, u/s 250 of the Act, 1961, which has emanated from the orders of the AO dated 28.09.2021 for A. Y. 2013-14 and 23.09.2021 for A. Y. 2014-15 both passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 / 144B of the I.T. Act.
2 I.T.A. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that both the appeals are
belated by 277 (two hundred seventy seven) days. The assessee has filed an application
for condonation of delay in respect of both the years stating that the e-mail address
mentioned in Form No. 35 saleem.tmu@gmail.com, belongs to one of the employees
of the assessee who has left service and the notices issued to the above mail id , from
the office of the ld. CIT(A), could not complied with because the said notices has not
been communicated to the assessee by the ex-employee. It was further submitted that
after receipt of information from the bankers regarding bank attachment and passing
of ex-parte order by the ld. first appellate authority necessary steps were taken for filing
this appeal before the tribunal, belated by 277 (two hundred seventy seven days) which
may please be condoned because the same was not intentional or willful and appeals
may please be admitted to be heard on merits.
The ld. DR has no objection for condonation, but pointed out that the assessee
is a habitual defaulter and there has been delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)
also, resulting in refusing to admit appeals for violation of section 249(3) of the Act
61.
3.1 Considering the application for condonation of delay, we find that the assessee is
indeed a habitual defaulter because the appeal before the ld. first appellate authority
for both the years , has been filed belatedly by 91 days for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 201
3 I.T.A. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 days for A.Y. 2014-15 and in both the cases, the appeal has not been admitted for
hearing on merits by the ld. first appellate authority and the appeal has been dismissed
u/s 249(3) of the Act , by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals beyond
the limitation period.
3.2. We further note that while filing these appeals before the Tribunal, there has
again been a delay of 277 days and we find that the assessee is not serious enough to
pursue the matters in the appeal forum and we find that it is a suitable case for
imposition of cost , but considering the charitable activities carried out we impose just
a token cost of Rs.2,000/- ( two thousand only ) on the assessee and we direct the
assessee to pay the said amount to the credit of “Prime Ministers National Relief
Fund” within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order ( receipt to be
produced before JAO ).
However, the ld. AR of the assessee appearing in the court has prayed for
condonation of the delay and asked for one more opportunity to put-forth his case and
submissions on merits, considering the fact that no opportunity was provided for
presentation of case because of non-receipt of hearing notice.
4.1. We find that the appeal has been dismissed ex-parte and has not been adjudicated
on merits of the case because the delay in filing the appeals before Ld. CIT(A) , has
4 I.T.A. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 not been condoned which according to the assessee is covered by extension under
Covid period.
We find that in the instant case both the appeals have been dismissed as per
provisions of section 249(3) and has not been adjudicated on merits. As such, in the
interest of justice, we condone the delay of the assessee in filing the appeals before the
first appellate authority being 91(ninty one days) for assessment year 2013-14 and 201
( two hundred and one days ) for the assessment year 2014-15 and we remand both the
appeals to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for admitting the appeals and
adjudicating the same on merits of the case on the grounds contained in Form No. 35.
The assessee is directed to file all documentary evidences and submissions in
support of his contention, before the ld. first appellate authority and to fully cooperate
in appellate proceedings.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left
open.
Notices to be issued as per provisions of section 282 of the Act and also in e-
mail id caybr99@gmail.com.
5 I.T.A. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court as on 17.12.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
