Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. There was a delay of 421 days in filing the appeal, and the assessee contended that notices were not served properly, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessment order had made additions to the returned income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 421 days, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condoning delays with sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal and had not provided the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the Ld. CIT(A) order was passed without providing a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
154
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
(A.Y 2016-17) Sidhbali Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Old Sidhbali Marg, Kotdwear, Income Tax Pauri, Uttarakhand Office,Nazibabad Road, PAN: ACKFS7264E Kotdwar, Pauri, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. B. R. Garg,Adv Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 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)/ADDL/JCIT(A)- Gurugram dated 31/01/2024 (‘Ld. CIT(A) for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17.
There is a delay of 421 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit contending that the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee and the same have been served on the e-mail id which is not belongs to the Assessee. As the order impugned being ex-parte, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time. Thereafter, the Assessee has also filed application u/s 154 of the Act and was pursuing the said application. Therefore, there was a delay in filing the present Appeal, accordingly, sought for condoning the delay.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, 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 the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee and the same have been served on the e-mail id which is not belongs to the Assessee. As the order impugned being ex-parte, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time. Thereafter, the Assessee has also filed application u/s 154 of the Act and was pursuing the said application, therefore, there was a delay in filing the present Appeal.
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 421 days in filing the present Appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 30/12/2018 by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 14,65,180/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 2,47,120/- by making certain addition. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/12/2018, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31/01/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
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 appeal of the Assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A),the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the first Appealhas not decided all the grounds of Appeal 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 matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.