Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an Apartment Owners Association, filed an appeal with a delay of 367 days due to technical issues in updating their email ID after a change in the managing committee. The previous president, whose email ID was on record, was out of India, preventing timely communication and filing.
Held
The Tribunal noted the delay and the reasons provided by the assessee, emphasizing the need for justice and fair play. It was of the opinion that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and deciding the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27/06/2024 in for the assessment year 2022-23.
At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which was not condoned. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) in limine.
The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is an Apartment Owners Association. The Managing Committee and office bearers of such associations are elected every two years on an honorary basis. The committee members act voluntarily and do not receive any remuneration from the association.
3.2 It was further submitted that the new committee was elected on 19/05/2022 for a period of two years. However, the email ID furnished in the Income Tax records belonged to the earlier president. The assessee attempted to update the email ID but encountered technical issues in receiving the One-Time Password (OTP), as the previous president was outside India at the relevant time. This resulted in the delay in filing the appeal.
The learned AR emphasized that the assessee is a non-profit organization, and not condoning the delay would cause significant hardship. Therefore, the AR requested that the matter be remitted to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The AR also undertook the responsibility to ensure compliance before the CIT(A).
On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any serious objections to remitting the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. Taking into account the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal and the assurance of the . learned AR regarding compliance, we are of the opinion that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue afresh on its merits in accordance with the provisions of law. It is also directed the assessee to make necessary compliance before the ld. CIT-A and not to seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.