Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay. The delay occurred because the assessee claimed to have not received hearing notices from the CIT(A) due to an oversight in the appeal form regarding e-mail communication.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and allow the assessee to present their case before the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
250, 80P
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT ‘SMC’ BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 22/08/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 10 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.13,39,528/- u/s.80P of the IT Act, 1961.
3. It is therefore prayed that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer may please be deleted.
4. Appellant craves to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.
3. The appeal is time-barred by 263 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that in the Appeal Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has mentioned as “No” in the column in which it was asked as to whether the notices can be sent on e-mail. Even the Ld. CIT(A) did not sent the notice on the mentioned e-mail in Appeal Form 35. Therefore, the assessee neither came to know about the dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) nor could represent the case before him and even did not come to know about the passing of the final order of the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the appeal was filed belatedly due to lack of knowledge and because of the aforesaid reasons, a delay of 263 days has occurred in filing the appeal. The Ld. Counsel in this respect relied upon the screen-shot obtained from the income-tax Portal.
4. Considering the above submissions, we are of the view that the interests of Justice will be well served if the assessee be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer (AO) however, subject to payment of reasonable costs. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo The Sandhiar Group Coop Cotton Gorwers Association Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 assessment subject to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessee will furnish the evidence of deposit of the said amount before the Ld.AO thereafter the Ld. AO will pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/02/2026.