Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed against separate orders of the CIT(A) - NFAC for AY 2011-12. There was a delay in filing the appeals, attributed to the incorrect email address used for communication by the First Appellate Authority. The assessees became aware of the orders only through communication from the Revenue Recovery Office.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient reason due to the incorrect service of notices. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance before the AO in the previous round, despite specific directions, and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- in each case. The matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals can be condoned due to incorrect service of notices and whether to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 54, 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI JAGADISH
& 2719/CHNY/2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of two assessees are directed against two separate orders of CIT(A) - NFAC dated 05.12.2023 & 01.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12.
Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.
There is a delay of 264 days and 237 days in filing 2719/CHNY/2024 respectively. The assessees have filed affidavits and condonation applications stating therein reasons for belated filing of these appeals. The reason for delay in filing of appeals before the Tribunal is identical in both the cases. The reason stated for belated filing of appeals is that e-mail communications from the office of the First Appellate Authority were sent to the e-mail address ‘btandco@gmail.com’. It was submitted that said e-mail does not belong to the assessees nor & 2719/CHNY/2024 assessees representative. In this context, the ld.AR placed on record the notice issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority. It was submitted that assessees became aware of the orders being passed by the First Appellate Authority only on receipt of the communication from the Revenue Recovery Office. It was stated that on verifying the status of First Appellate Authority proceedings, the office of the counsel on record came to know that the impugned orders were passed on 05.12.2023 and 01.01.2024 respectively.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the proceedings before the First Appellate Order and the orders of the First Appellate Order have been served on wrong e-mail address and not to the e-mail address that is mentioned in the Form 35. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for belated filing of these appeals and we condone the delay of 264 days and 237 days respectively in filing these appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
Since notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority were not served on the correct e-mail address of the assessees, the orders passed by the CIT(A) were ex-parte.
& 2719/CHNY/2024 Therefore, there is adequate reason for restoring the matters to the First Appellate Authority.
However, we notice that these are cases arising before the ITAT in the second round of litigation. The ITAT in the first round had restored the matter to the files of the AO for denovo consideration, since the proceedings before the AO and the CIT(A) in the first round of litigation were ex-parte. We notice that pursuant to the Tribunal’s order, the assessee did not appear before the AO in spite of specific directions of ITAT. The assessees non-appearance before the AO subsequent to the ITAT’s order speaks volume about the callous attitude of the assessee. The ld.AR has not furnished any reason for non-appearance of the assessee before the AO, pursuant to the ITAT’s remand order. The ld.AR does not have a case that notice issued from the office of the AO has not been served on the assessee. We strongly deprecate this careless attitude of the assessee and impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in each of the case. Therefore, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- in each case to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the matter is restored to the files of the AO. The assessees on producing the challan for said payment, the AO shall take up the & 2719/CHNY/2024 matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to appear and furnish necessary evidences / written submissions in support of their claim of deduction u/s.54 / 54F of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2024 at Chennai.