Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a significant delay of 1790 days. The delay was explained by the assessee stating that they were unaware of the order passed during assessment proceedings until a demand was raised, as their counsel had advised that the intimation u/s 143(1) was not appealable.
Held
The Tribunal held that when professionals provide incorrect legal advice, tax authorities should be more lenient. The CIT(A) was not considered benevolent in not condoning the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the advice given by the assessee's counsel.
Sections Cited
143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.03.2025 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, DELHI/10016/2017-18 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 31.01.2020 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ADIT, CPC (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
On hearing both the sides, we find that primarily the grievance of the assessee is failure of the CIT(A) not to condone the delay of 1790 days in filing the appeal which the ld. AR has explained on the basis that it is only when the demand was raised they came to know of the order being passed against them during the assessment proceedings and their counsel was not informing them of the proceedings.
Although the ld. DR has vehemently opposed the plea, we find that when the application for condonation of the delay was filed before the CIT(A), documents were filed to show that it was in September, 2024 the assessee had changed its income-tax auditor and an affidavit has been filed of the Secretary of the assessee institution that the trust had appointed CA Shri Ankur Agarwal for AY 2018-19 who conducted the tax audit and earlier one Shri Roshan Khatri, Advocate, was assisting the trust. The said advocate had advised that no appeal is maintainable before the CIT(A) and had assured that by correspondence with CPC, Bangalore and jurisdictional AO, demand will be get corrected. Shri Roshan Khatri, Advocate, has also filed his affidavit wherein he has deposed that he had advised the assessee that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is not appealable before the CIT(A). 2
We are of the considered view that when the professionals take responsibility of rendering an incorrect legal advice especially to institutions like the society or trust, then, the tax authorities should be more generous and prudent to accept the plea. However, it appears that the ld.CIT(A) has not been that benevolent. Accordingly, we consider it an appropriate case to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, allowing the condonation of delay before the CIT(A), the appeal on merit is restored to the files of the ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeal on merits as well as on the questions of law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025.