SATISH BANDAPELLY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised identical grounds in all these appeals. The grounds raised in are reproduced as under:

At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed all the 4 appeals of the assessee filed against the assessment order as well as respective penalty orders on the ground of limitation by declining the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. He has pointed out that there was a delay of 551 days in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (A) against the assessment order

Page 2 of 9 and 378 days in filing the appeals against the penalty orders. The assessee explained the cause of delay as none of these orders was served upon the assessee physically and therefore, the assessee was not having the knowledge of passing the assessment order as well as the penalty orders by the Assessing Officer. He has pointed out that all these orders were passed during the Covid period or just after the covid period and in the absence of any physical service of these orders, the assessee was not aware about these orders and could not file appeal before the learned CIT (A) within the period of limitation. He has filed petition for condonation of delay before the Tribunal which are supported by affidavits of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (A) may be condoned and the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for adjudication of the appeals on merits.

On the other hand, the learned DR relying upon the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish any sufficient reasons to explain the inordinate delay of 551 days in filing the appeals against the assessment order as well as 378 days in filing the appeal against the penalty orders. He has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT (A).

We have considered the rival submissions on condonation of delay and perused the relevant material available

Thus, the assessee has briefly stated the reasons for delay as having no knowledge of the order passed by the Page 4 of 9 Assessing Officer and pleaded for condonation of delay. The learned CIT (A) declined to condone the delay on the ground that the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient cause for condonation of delay as held in para 6.1 as under: “6.1. The appellant, in the present situation, appears to be guilty of latches or negligence and does not take appropriate steps to peruse the remedy till about 551 days and thus does not take appropriate action in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. In the light of the above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus the application of the appellant for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.”

The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay before the Tribunal and elaborated the reasons/cause of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The condonation petition has been supported by the affidavit of the assessee wherein the assessee has stated as under: “Therefore, we aggrieved of the above order and the remedy for redressal of our grievances lies in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act. As per the provisions of the Act, the appeal before the learned CIT (A) has to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the order i.e. on or before 30/01/2022. However, the appeal before the learned CIT (A) could not be filed within the time prescribed because the physical certified copy of the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 has not been received by the assessee till date. Thus, the appeal was filed on 2/11/2023 with a delay of 551 days from the period 30/04/2022 to 2/11/2023. However, the learned CIT (A) rejected the petition for condonation of delay without considering the “Affidavit” filed and reasons submitted, which is against to the principles of natural justice and without following the judicial pronouncements on this issue”.

The Department has not disputed the fact that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 as well as the penalty orders passed u/s 271AAC(1), 271B and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not served upon the assessee physically but all these orders were sent to the email ID registered with the Department. The learned AR of the assessee has explained that the email registered with the Department was not functional during the said period and therefore, the impugned orders were missed the attention of the assessee. Further, the assessee filed the application for obtaining a certified copy of these orders which took a considerable time and hence, there was a further delay even after the covid period for filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). Hence, the learned AR has pleaded that due to the non- receipt of the notices, the assessment order as well as penalty orders passed ex-parte, the assessee could not take necessary steps for filing the appeals in time. Thereafter, the learned CIT (A) has also passed all the impugned orders ex-parte and dismissed the appeals of the assessee as not maintainable being barred by limitation.

Having considered the reasons explained by the assessee in the petition for condonation of delay as well as the contents of the affidavit, we find that the reasons are factually not in dispute, though there is a laxity on the part of the assessee to take necessary steps for filing the appeals within a reasonable period even after the extension of limitation granted by the Page 6 of 9 Hon'ble Supreme Court due to covid 19 pandemic. However, the expression “sufficient cause” must be considered liberally in favour of the litigant approached the Court belatedly, so that the dispute could be decided as far as possible, on merit and not on technicalities. At the same time, the delay should neither be intentional nor for taking any undue benefit by the assessee. If the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and there is no element of deliberate delay or taking undue advantage in filing the appeal belatedly, then the concept of liberal interpretation must be applied while considering the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. In the case in hand, the assessee has explained that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 as well as the penalty orders passed u/s 271AAC(1), 271B and 271F of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not served upon the assessee physically, but these orders were sent to the email ID registered with the Department which could not come to the notice of the assessee due to non-functional email ID at the relevant point of time. Therefore, when the delay in filing the appeal was not with a malafide intention or achieving any ulterior purpose, or an attempt to save the limitation in under hand anyway, we are of the considered opinion that the appeals of the assessee must be decided on merits instead of dismissing on technical reasons. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the delay of 551 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) against the assessment orders and delay of 378 days in filing each appeal against the penalty order passed

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.