Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: These two appeals have been preferred by assessee against the impugned orders dated 21.11.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2016- 17/10222169 and NFAC/2016-17/10222171 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), dismissed both the first appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation.
Brief facts state that on perusal of the audit report, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had shown gross profit of Rs.38,17,073/-. However, since the assessee failed to submit any bills/vouchers related to expenses, booked profit and loss, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee company at the gross profit of Rs.38,17,073/- vide assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty of Rs.5,70,079/- u/s. 270A of the Act vide penalty order dated 29.12.2021.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeals against the aforesaid assessment order and penalty order before the ld.
CIT(Appeals), wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of 509 days’ delay in filing the appeals and dismissed both the appeals as non-maintainable.
We have perused the records and heard the ld. Representative for the assessee and the ld. Departmental representative for the Revenue.
It appears from the perusal of record that the appellant assigned the reason for condonation of 509 days’ delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(Appeals) stating as under :
“The assessee has changed his counsel before assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18. Also since previous counsels mail id was mentioned in the ITR fled for respective year therefore all notices and demands were sent on previous counsels mail id. Thus the assessee was totally unaware about the assessment proceedings carried on for AY 2017-18, so no reply has ever been submitted by assessee. Therefore assessee was also not aware about the assessment order passed" 2 | P a g e The learned CIT(Appeals), however, disbelieving the aforesaid reasons for delay, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
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 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. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 509 days. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders dated 21.11.2024. The delay in filing the first appeal before first appellate authority stands condoned and the matters are restored back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for passing orders afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say, the first appellate authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. 3 | P a g e
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 02.04.2025 *aks/-