Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 309 days. The assessee's consultant failed to inform them about notices, leading to ex-parte orders by the lower authorities.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, restoring the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified.
Sections Cited
253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 250 of the Income Tax Act, 147/144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Jasbir Singh, Income Tax Officer, H. No.72, Village Jarasu, Rudrapur, Pratappur, Khatima, Vs. Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand-262308. PAN-AAKPN3462D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Amar Pal Singh, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) in Appeal No. CIT(A)/Haldwani/10153/2018-19 dated 09.06.2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
From the perusal of the records, it is found that the present appeal is delayed by 309 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by duly sworn in affidavit. The condonation application is reproduced as under: “Sub: Application for condonation of delay and Stay of demand. Statement on oath of S. Jasvir Singh S/o Late Sri Chanan Singh R/o H.NO.72, VILLAGE JARASU, PRATAPPUR, KHATIMA, DISTT. U.S. NAGAR-262308, UTTARAKAHAND 1) That the name and address of the deponent is correct and he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of his case.
Jasbir Singh vs. ITO 2) That the Ex-Parte impugned Judgment/Order Passed by the learned C.I.T. (Appeal) N.F.A.C. Delhi Dated 09/06/2023 was uploaded and deemed service of the same on the same date, however it is not admitted as the appellant/applicant was unaware of it as the e-mail mentioned in the memorandum of first appeal was of the consultant who even failed to address the notices and intimate the same to the appellant. 3) That the time for filing the Appeal U/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was up to 09.08.2023 and this appeal is uploaded on 14/06/24 late by 309 days and only thereafter a hard copy is submitted in office. 4) That the deponent preferred appeal before the Jurisdictional CIT (Appeal) Haldwani Distt. Nainital physically, which was taken up subsequently by faceless system. The appellant had no e-mail address and had to mention the e-mail address of the consultant in the memorandum of appeal form-35 (under duress/under compelling circumstances). The notice of hearing of faceless appeal in the circumstances were issued on e-mail of the consultant who neither addressed the notice/s nor did he inform to the deponent, the appeal so filed was decided ex-party and the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected basically for non pursuance. Even to the extend the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act Dt. 09/06/2023 was send on such e-mail address and was not known to the appellant unless someone from the department informed the appellant in this regards on mobile and thereafter he started working on the unknown subject which was heather to dealt by his father (died on 07/10/2013) and Late S Gopal Singh a close relative and friend who also died in Dt.02/09/2020, and his brother S. Avtar Singh s/o S. Chanan Singh who also died on 03/12/2020 due to "COVID 5) That the reason for delay in filing of appeal just because of negligence of the Consultant. 6) That the deponent after knowing the proceeding of his case tried to find a suitable counsel at Dehradun and met Shri B.R. Garg Advocate at Dehradun and Thereafter The appeal could be prepared and filed on 14.06.2024. 7) That the deponent has no fund to deposit the demand created illegally and arbitrary against the deponent. 8) That the contents of application for condonation of delay are treated as part of this affidavit.”
After considering the facts and the prayer of the assessee, we find that there was bonafide and sufficient reason regarding delay in filing the appeal. Under these circumstances, the delay is condoned and appeal of assessee is admitted for adjudication.
Heard the departmental representative and perused the material available on records.
A perusal of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC clearly shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided five opportunities to the assessee for making Jasbir Singh vs. ITO submissions in support of the grounds of appeal taken. All the notices so issued were successfully delivered to appellant through ITBA Portal. It was in this backdrop that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose-off the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. Even the assessment order u/s.147/144 has been passed ex-parte due to non- compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer.
It is stated in the statement of facts filed before us that the notices of hearing were sent to the mail id of the consultant though no mail id was given in the appeal memo. The consultant at whose mail id the notices were sent did not inform the assessee about any such notices thus the same remained unattended. Looking to these facts and in the larger interest of justice, we set aside both the orders of lower authorities and restored back the same to the file of AO to pass the assessment order denovo fresh in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunities to the assessee of being heard.