Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, but there was a delay of 149 days. The Assessee contended that the delay was due to the order being sent to spam and a change in staff. The Department argued for dismissal due to lack of sufficient cause for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 149 days, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. The Tribunal found that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte and the CIT(A) had not decided all grounds on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities are justified.
Sections Cited
144
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 23/04/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
There is a delay of 149 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condoning the delay contending that the order impugned has reached on spam mail and the staff of the Assessee got changed, therefore, the Assessee could not filed the Appeal on time.
Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.
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. It is the case of the Assessee that the order impugned has reached on the spam mail and the staff of the Assessee got changed, therefore, the Assessee could not filed the Appeal 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 149 days in filing the present Appeal.
An assessment order came to be passed on 18/11/2019 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions.
The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been dismissed on 23/04/2024 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23/04/2024, 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 assessment. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before passing the assessment orderin 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 08th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/-
(MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 08 .08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S*