Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 201 days, citing illness and treatment for a heart condition as the reason. The assessment order and the subsequent order by the Ld. CIT(A) were ex-parte, with the assessee not participating in the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and, following the Supreme Court's precedent, condoned it. It was observed that both the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without deciding all grounds on merit, violating principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities violate principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
144, Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 24/05/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
There is a delay of 201days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that the appeal could not be file on time as the Assessee was ill and had been undergoing treatment at Gangasheel Hospital related to heart disease. As per the advice of the Doctor to take rest, the movements of Assessee were restricted therefore, the Appeal could not be filed on time.
there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal 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 Assessee was ill and had been undergoing treatment at Gangasheel Hospital related to heart disease. As per the advice of the Doctor to take rest, the movements of Assessee were restricted therefore, the Appeal could not be filed on time.
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 201 days in filing the present Appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 30/12/2019 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 24/05/2024, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that both the order of the A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the grounds of the Appeal of the Assessee and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice.
Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Both the order of the A.O. as well as order of the Ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte, wherein the Assessee has not participated in any of the proceedings. Even the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
10. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 13 .08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI