Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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
(A.Y 2017-18) Sh. Santram Vs ITO Near Subhash Chandra Bose Ward 1(2) (3), Academy, Nathuwala, 248001, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand PAN: DEMPS4349P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Rajeev Sahani, CA Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/07/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)’/NFAC’ for short), Delhi dated 20/10/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
There is a delay of 458 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 lawyers e-mail id, which resulted in non-compliance as well as passing of the ex-parte orders by the Lower Authorities. The Assessee has also claimed that he is not a computer literate and came to know about the passing of the order impugned only when notice of penalty were served physically. 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. 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 lawyers e- mail id, which resulted in non-compliance as well as passing of the ex- parte orders by the Lower Authorities. The Assessee has also claimed that he is not a computer literate and came to know about the passing of the order impugned only when notice of penalty were served physically.
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 458 days in filing the present Appeal.
Facts in brief are that, an ex-parte assessment order came to be passed 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 20/10/2023 vide order impugned. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
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 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 and 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 order in accordance with law. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail.
9. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose.