Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 10 days, citing issues with email access and lost passwords as the reason for the delay. The appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not receive the hearing notices due to them being mistakenly placed in the spam folder.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal, and whether to set aside an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the AO.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 27.02.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
There is a delay of 10 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay for belated filing of this appeal and we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 10 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The learned AR submitted that the manager of the assessee could not access email as the password to the email account was lost and when the assessee retrieved the password and signed into the account, assessee could not find any hearing notices from the Office of the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the spam folder of the assessee’s email. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the AO.
The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Since assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the AO. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.