Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an AC mechanic, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which had confirmed an addition of ₹ 11,67,560/- by the Assessing Officer. There was a significant delay of 410 days in filing the appeal to the Tribunal, which the assessee attributed to a lack of knowledge of tax proceedings, being abroad for a job, and delayed receipt of the demand notice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay to be non-intentional and justifiable, especially given the assessee's background and absence from India. Citing principles of natural justice and considering income tax laws as welfare legislation, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Propriety of ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) and the application of natural justice principles.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI SONJOY SARMA & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 11/01/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of 410 days in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 11/01/2024, however, this appeal was filed on 15/05/2025. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that the delay in filing of appeal occurs due to dispute
P a g e 1 | 5 in the society running since year 2020. The assessee being the AC mechanic has no knowledge of income tax proceedings and also he has no knowledge of internet and e-portal due to which the assessee was not aware of the passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A) and the same was also no intimated by his accountant. The assessee has got a job opportunity in Dubai for which training was started in Mumbai for nine months starting from December, 2023 to 30th September, 2024. After completion of training, a test was conducted which the assessee passed and selected for the post of AC mechanic in Dubai for which visa has been issued on 02/10/2024. During this period, the assessee was outside India. Thereafter, the wife of the assessee received a demand notice issued by the department and the same was sent to the assessee on Whatsapp. Thereafter, the assessee searched for a consultant and appointed him after reaching India in holiday as per the company norms. The assessee stated that the delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has good case on merit would suffer prejudice if delay is not condoned in its case and the appeal is not adjudicated on merit. The assessee has relied on various case laws and prayed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.
On merit of the case, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of ₹ 11,67,560/-on account of income from other sources. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and P a g e 2 | 5 the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee prayed to give one more opportunity and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee is habitual in not responding the notices issued by the revenue authorities. Even before both the lower authorities, the assessee has not appeared and no compliance was made by him. On merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that sufficient opportunities have already been provided to the assessee as evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First we shall consider the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the impugned order was passed on 11/01/2024, however, the present appeal is filed on 15/05/2025, the system has calculated delay of 410 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal. As recorded above, the assessee submitted that he assessee being the AC mechanic has no knowledge of income tax proceedings and also he has no knowledge of e-portal of department due to which the assessee was not aware of the passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A). We also find that the assessee has got a job in Dubai as AC mechanic and he was not available in the country. Due to which, the P a g e 3 | 5 assessee could not file appeal within the time limit. Considering the fact that the assessee has explained the reasons for not filing the appeal within stipulated time and seems to be not intentional, therefore, the delay of 410 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
Now adverting to the merit of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The assessee was served with various notices, as recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 7 of his impugned order, to substantiate the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A). However, no compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A), in absence of any submission or evidence, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Now before us, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to provide one more opportunity to decide the case on merit before the ld. CIT(A). It is correct that reasonable opportunities have been provided to the assessee, still, there was no compliance. The facts remain that the income tax laws are within the ambit of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and therefore, given the facts and circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit of doubt has to be attributed to the assessee/tax payer. There may be circumstances beyond the control of assessee or "vis major" because of which the assessee may not have able to comply with the notices before the revenue authorities. Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non- compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles P a g e 4 | 5 of natural justice, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reasons and to furnish all the details and evidences to justify various grounds of appeal
. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2025.