Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
Date of Hearing : 20-06-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12-07-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order passed by NFAC, Delhi dated 22.02.2023 for A.Y. 2015-16.
At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 61 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. It is submitted that the appellate order was issued to a gmail account that was no longer in access by the assessee and that Page 2 of Ld.CIT(A) expired, due to which the receipt of various notices by the Ld.CIT(A) as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A) went unattended. The Ld.AR thus submitted that in the interest of justice, the issue may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the appeal.
On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed could not controvert the submissions of the assessee.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
It is noted that the authorized representative of the assessee who was handling the appeal before the first appellate authority expired due to which assessee could not take necessary steps to represent its case before the Ld.CIT(A) and the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee to file the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also submitted by the Ld.AR that there is no malafide intention on behalf of assessee in not filing the present appeal within time.
5.1 In view of the above, the assessee could not file the appeal before this Tribunal well in time and by the time the appeal papers were prepared for filing, there arose delay of about 61 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The reason for the delay in filing the present appeal was due to reason beyond the control of the assessee.
Page 3 of He thus prayed for the delay to be condoned.
5.2 On the contrary, the Ld.DR though objected however could not controvert the reasoning given by the Ld.AR for the delay that was caused in filing the present appeal. However, he opposed to the condoning of delay. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
5.3 Considering the circumstances under which the delay was caused in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal we are of the opinion that there was no malafide intention of the assessee in causing the delay to file the present appeal. It is also that nothing contrary to what is submitted by the assessee, could be established by the revenue before us.
5.4 We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein, Hon’ble Court observed as under:- “The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to Page 4 of have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that :
1. 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
5.5 Considering the submissions by both sides and respectfully following the observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find it fit to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal as it is not attributable to the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned.
On merits of the case, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) issued two notices during covid period on 26.02.2021 and 23.03.2021. The third notice that was issued to the assessee was on 28.01.2023 and the impugned order came to be passed on 22.02.2023. Considering the circumstances that prevailed in the present case, due to the demise of the representative, it is necessary that the appeal deserves to be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the Page 5 of claim afresh. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to issue fresh notice to the assessee at the following email address: kprcoekm17@hotmail.com
The assessee is directed to take necessary steps to represent its case before the Ld.CIT(A) upon receipt of notice without any delay. Assessee is also at liberty to furnish all relevant evidences in support of its claim and the Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed order on merits after considering the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2024.