DHANANJAY SANJOGTA FOUNDATION,NOIDA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

1. The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 02/08/2024 for the Assessment Years 2018-19.

There is a delay of 167 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application contending that the mobile number and the e-mail ID mentioned in the portal was not belongs to the Assessee and due to non-handling of the tax matter by the professional, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR reiterating the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal.

The Assessee in the application for delay contended that the mobile number and the e-mail ID mentioned in the portal was not belongs to the Assessee and due to non-handling of the tax matter by the professional.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 167 days in filing the present Appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 27/03/2023 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27/03/2023, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/03/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in laches of 135 days. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Assessee is an illiterate and was not aware of the assessment proceedings and the e-mail ID as well as the mobile number mentioned in the portal was not belongs to the Assessee, therefore, either the notice or the assessment order has not been served on the Assessee.

The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the reason assigned by the Assessee for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) that the Assessee could not file the appeal before the CIT(A) on time due to illiteracy and the e-mail ID as well as the mobile number mentioned in the portal was not belongs to the Assessee, we condone the delay of 135 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.