Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY
PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.09.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same may kindly be quashed.
That the delay in filing of Appeal be kindly condoned.
3. That the order of the learned lower authorities passed are unlawful and illegal.
4. That the various findings of the learned lower authorities are opposed to the facts hence the same may kindly be quashed.
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeals NFAC is not justified in rejecting the appeal not filed within the time limit.
Page 2 of 6 6. That the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous both in law and on facts in as much as he has failed to appreciate the principles of Audi alteram partem and the purpose there of. ' 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer erred and was not justified in making an addition of Rs. 1,06,00,040/- on account of estimated income of the appellant and the learned CIT Appeals NFAC confirming the addition, without going in to the merits of the case.
That the above grounds are independent to each other.”
2. At the time of hearing of appeal none was present on behalf of the assessee. It is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation for 10 days as reported by the Registry. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. It is stated by the assessee that he was unaware of the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time, it was only in the mid-November, 2024 that he became aware of the factum of the order which was passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, it is stated that due to upgradation of ITBA portal short delay occurred in filing of the appeal. The delay occurred for the bona fide reasons and the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal in time. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has thoroughly been negligent and did not prosecute the appeal even filed before the Ld. CIT(A).
Heard, the Ld. DR and perused the materials on record. We find that there is a small delay of 10 days in filing the appeal. We have considered the reasons stated in the affidavit one of the reasons stated to be upgradation of portal of the Income Tax Department. This fact is not rebutted by the Revenue. Under these facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by “reasonable cause” for Page 3 of 6 not filing the present appeal in time. We, therefore, condone the delay of 10 days and admit the appeal for deciding the same on the basis of materials available on record.
4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a partner of a firm namely M/s. B. Agrawal & Co, having its office at shown Sonebhadra (U.P). The assessee had filed his return of income on 14.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2017-18, disclosing income at Rs.18,00,170/-. The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment and after issuing the requisite statutory notices, affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee passed the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 27.02.2022. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022 and for want of compliance by the assessee, the Assessing Authority proceeded to frame the impugned assessment on 26.04.2023. Thereby, he assessed income of the assessee at Rs.1,24,00,210/- u/s 144/147 of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal being barred by time. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) has supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the assessee has been negligent throughout and did not submit the requisite details as called for from time to time by the lower authorities.
Heard, the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) vide “3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 was made on 26.04.2023 which got served upon the appellant on 26.04.2023 but the appeal was filed on 19.06.2023 i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147. The contention of the appellant regarding delay in filing of appeal is considered carefully but is not acceptable on merit. Further, it shows the callous attitude towards the statutory notices and orders as the appellant himself in form 35 stated that the order received on 26.04.2023. Further, the appellant did not file any evidence in support of his claim regarding the error on the portal. Hence, the reason stated can’t be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.
In view of the above facts, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purpose and not required to be adjudicated on merits.
In result, the appeal is disposed off.”
From the above findings, it transpires that that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed purely on the basis of delay without considering the reasons for such delay. It is well settled by the authority on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the application seeking condonation of delay should not be rejected in a mechanical manner. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have verified about the correctness of the contention of the assessee that he was prevented by “sufficient cause”. Moreover, the assessee would have no advantage of any kind by filing appeal late. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that “this court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for “sufficient cause” held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day’s delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal Page 5 of 6 to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical consideration and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of “sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrase ‘liberal approach’, justice oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”, Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 has reiterated the principle for granting condonation of delay by observing as under: - “13. It is very elementary and well understood that courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing with the applications for condonation of the delay in filing appeals and rather follow a pragmatic line to advance substantial justice.”
8. In the light of the binding precedence and the reasons stated before the Ld. CIT(A), we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and seeking remand report from the Assessing Authority. The assessee is hereby directed to co-operate in the proceedings and furnish the requisite details as called for by the Ld. CIT(A). Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/08/2025.