Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed several appeals before the ITAT, some of which were dismissed by the CIT(A) for delay, and one was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee, a 70-year-old agriculturist with limited knowledge of technology and facing health issues, submitted that they were not afforded sufficient opportunities for hearing and that there were procedural irregularities in the appeals filed before the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submissions regarding delay and the lack of sufficient opportunities for hearing. It noted that while one appeal was dismissed ex-parte without proper reasons, four others were dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of substantial justice over technicalities.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of appeals by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay and ex-parte order, without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee, is justified.
Sections Cited
250(6), 249(2), 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER Per Bench: All these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 18.06.2024, 29.11.2024, 26.07.2024, 18.06.2024 and 26.07.2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A), Gwalior/10389/2020-21, NFAC/2011-12/10231443, NFAC/2011-12/10256404, CIT(A), Gwalior/10388/2020-21 and NFAC/2011-12/10254230 respectively by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal No. NFAC/2011- 12/10231443 related to as ex-parte in default and remaining appeals were dismissed upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay.
All the aforesaid appeals have been filed on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the aforesaid appeals ex-parte and without affording sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
We have perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee and learned departmental representative for the Revenue.
Learned representative for the assessee has submitted that the ld.
CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the four appeals on the ground of delay and one appeal has been dismissed in default of assessee. He further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist aged about 70 years, living in a remote rural area, having no knowledge and facilities of internet or computer and he did not receive any of the notices issued by the revenue authorities. Learned representative for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer passed two assessment orders in assessee’s case for the same duration on the same date on 11.11.2019 on the same issue. He further submitted that the assessee may be afforded an opportunity of hearing and Ld. CIT(A) be directed to pass order afresh on merit. 2 | P a g e
Learned Departmental representative has supported the impugned orders.
It transpires from the perusal of records that appeal (ITA No.
95/Agr/2025) has been filed on 24.02.2025 by against the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 by a delay of 191 days. has been filed on 26.02.2025 against impugned order dated 29.11.2024 by a delay of about 28 days. has been filed on 26.02.2025 against the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 by a delay of about 148 days. has been preferred on 26.02.2025 against the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 by a delay of about 193 days. has been preferred on 26.02.2025 against the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 by a delay of about 148 days.
It has been submitted on behalf of the assessee that he is 70 years’ old age agriculturist and is not conversant with internet and computer. He further submitted that due to being seriously ill, he could not visit the office of his consultant. We treat these uncontroverted submissions as just and sufficient and condone the delay in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal No. CIT(A), Gwalior/10389/2020-21 by a delay of about 281 days, 3 | P a g e first appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/10256404 by a day of 460 days, first appeal No. CIT(A), Gwalior/10388/2020-21 by a delay of about 281 days and first appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/102254239 by a delay of 412 days.
However, first appeal No. NFAC/2011-12/102231443 related ITA No.
103/Agr/2025 was filed before the first appellate authority within the period of limitation
The limitation for filing appeals before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2)
of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however, not satisfied to condone the delay in filing aforesaid four appeals and dismissed the same on the ground of delay.
However, first appeal related to was dismissed as ex parte but without reasons, whereas, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of 4 | P a g e jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed.
The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. Keeping totality of facts and circumstances in view, we direct the assessee to move delay condonation applications in aforesaid four appeals before the first appellate authority and make submissions in respect thereof. Ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to consider assessee’s submissions and pass order afresh on assessee’s applications for condonation of delay in filing first appeals. Learned CIT(Appeals) is further directed to pass order afresh on merits in respect of the first appeal relating to after taking assessee’s submissions. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice.
In the result, all the aforesaid appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. We restore the matters back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for passing orders afresh in the light of observations made herein above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.04.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 04.04.2025 *aks/- 5 | P a g e