Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) which confirmed the AO's action of determining taxable income at Rs. 2,50,99,363/-, an increase from the return income of Rs. 1,11,07,510/-. The assessee's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not favorably considered by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the merits of the case and had merely applied the maxim 'Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt' to dismiss the appeal. Recognizing the appellant's inability to file the appeal in time due to technological unfamiliarities and the fact that no litigant benefits from non-prosecution, the Tribunal decided that justice would be met by giving the appellant another opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed time limit should be condoned and adjudicated on merits, especially when the delay was due to technological unfamiliarities.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064227387(1) dated 19.04.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2018- 19. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 19.04.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 At the outset the Ld. Council for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority vide his order dated 19.04.2024 supra has ex- parte confirmed the action of the Ld. AO in determining taxable income of Rs. 2,50,99,363/- as against return income of Rs.1,11,07,510/-. It was argued that while doing so assesse’s request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was not favourably considered. The Ld. CIT(A) was reported to have, relied upon the legal maxim of “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt” i.e law aids only those who are vigilant he dismissed assesse’s appeal. The Ld. Council for the assesse urged that it had justified grounds for the delay and that the same was not intentional or with any malafide interests. The Ld. Counsel submitted that because of technological un-familiarities with the new e-filing proceedings it could not make compliance in the given time. Request was therefore made that the matter be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after condoning the delay on merits of the case. It was assured that full cooperation would be tendered to the Ld. CIT(A) now . The Ld. CIT DR did not object to assesse pleas.
3.0 We have heard rival submission in the light of material available on records. There is no denying the fact that the appellant had not filed the appeal in the statutorily prescribed time and had therefore requested for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and its adjudication. Perusal of the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority however shows that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the merits of the present case and merely applied the judicial maxim of “Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt” i.e law aids only those who are vigilant to dismiss the appeal. We have also considered the arguments put forth by the appellant for its inability to file the appeal in time. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We therefore hold the view that ends of justice would be met if the appellant is given one more opportunity to present its case before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to re-adjudicate the matter after condoning the delay and giving necessary opportunities to the assesse and pass a speaking order. The assesse shall, inter alia, be placing before the Ld. First Appellate Authority necessary documents to support its case for the delay. Accordingly grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.