Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals filed by the Assessee were delayed by 766 days. The Assessee claimed the delay was due to issues with online filing and subsequent non-numbering of appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the Assessee's appeals ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 766 days considering the bonafide reasons presented by the Assessee and the principles of liberal interpretation for condonation of delay. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal ex-parte was valid.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The above captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the common orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 17/10/2022for the Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively.
There is a delay of 766 days in filing the above Appeals. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee filed the Appeals in online mode well within the period of limitation on 12/12/2022 itself before the Tribunal. However, the Appeals filed online have not been fixed for hearing and when enquired physical form of the Appeals, the Appeals filed online have not been numbered. Thereafter the Assessee once again filed the present Appeals and contended that there is a bona-fide reason for filing the captioned Appeals belatedly and sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeals.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the above Appeals, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeals on delay in latches.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee contended that the Assessee filed the Appeals in online mode well within the period of limitation on 12/12/2022 itself before the Tribunal.
However, the Appeals filed online have not been fixed for hearing and when enquired with the registry of the Tribunal found that as the Assessee has not filed physical form of the Appeals, the Appeals filed online have not been numbered. Thereafter the Assessee once again filed the present Appeals and contended that there is a bona-fide reason for filing the captioned Appeals belatedly. To substantiate the above acknowledgements dated 08/12/2022 and also system generated e-mails sent from the e-filing team of ITAT dated 12/12/2022. It is not in dispute that the Assessee has indeed e-filed the Appeals on time and the Appeals have not been registered as the physical set of appeal memo and the enclosures have not been submitted. The fresh Appeals have been filed by the Assessee belatedly after coming to know that its Appeals have not been registered.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 766 days in filing the captioned Appeals.
Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment orders for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2015-16 came to be passed on 29/12/2017 u/s Section143(3)/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions/disallowance. Aggrieved by the assessment CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 17/10/2022, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeals.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeals of the Assessee.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that sufficient opportunity has been given by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Assessee failed to represent before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeals.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appeals have been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that, while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeals of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matters to first Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos.
25/DDN/2025, 26/DDN/2025 and 37/DDN/2025 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.