Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member :
The captioned three appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad in 10207 & 10209/CIT(A)-9/Hyd/2018-19, dated 14/05/2019 arising out of 2 the orders passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2013-14 respectively.
At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a huge delay of 1077 days in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. With respect to the delay of 1077 days, the Ld. AR drawn our attention to the petition for condonation of delay wherein the assessee has explained the reasons that prevented the assessee in filing these appeals before the Tribunal beyond the prescribed time limit and submitted that for the AY 2009-10 the assessment order was passed on 23/12/2011 U/s. 143(3) of the Act and the assessee has filed its appeal against the assessment order before the First Appellate Authority well within the time on 20.01.2022. Similarly, for the AYs 2010-11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 the appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit before the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, all the four appeals were transferred to the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad.
Thereafter, the assessee received separate hearing notices for all the four appeals intimating the date of hearing as 22/01/2019.
With respect to hearing notices, the assessee’s Representative (Auditor) has filed letters on 22/01/2019 and sought for adjournment of hearing of the appeals as he would be out of 3 station on the given dates of hearing. Thereafter, the assessee did not receive any notices of hearing and the assessee was under the bonafide belief that hearing notices would be sent to the assessee considering the request of the assessee’s Representative. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad vide common order dated 14/05/2019 dismissed the appeals for the AYs 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2013-14 and vide separate order dated 25/02/2019 allowed the appeal for the AY 2014-15 on the basis of the information available on record. It was further submitted that, in the appellate order the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the hearing notices could not be served on the assessee. In fact, the assessee was not aware of the above orders of the Ld. CIT (A) as the orders were not sent by post but were issued to the e-mail account of the assessee. However, the assessee did not notice the orders lying in the email at the relevant point of time because the assessee closed its unit in Visakhapatnam on the ground that the business was not running well and therefore shifted its unit premises to Rourkela in Odisha State as well as the Directors were also shifted to Rourkela. Because of the shifting of the premises from Visakhapatnam to Rourkela, the orders went unnoticed. Otherwise, there is no deliberate intention to file the appeals beyond the prescribed time limit.
4 Further, due to COVID pandemic situation and considering the restrictions prevailed at that point of time, the assessee could not follow up the status of the appeals. It was came to know only when Sri G S Narayan, one of the Directors, received a phone call from the Department during the last week of December, 2021 regarding the tax arrears as the appeals filed by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority were dismissed. Then, the Director immediately took all possible steps required to file the appeals before the Tribunal. But, due to shifting of the office premises, the relevant paper could not be traced out and since some of the relevant office staff at Visakhapatnam unit were resigned and the assessee hardly get any help from them. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the above explained all the factors culminated into a delay of 1077 days in filing the appeals beyond the prescribed time limit. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that there is no willful negligence or latches on the part of the assessee. The delay has occurred only due to lack of knowledge of passing of the ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore he pleaded that the delay may be condoned and the matters may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeals on merits.
5 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that there is a huge delay of 1077 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal and the assessee has not properly explained the delay and therefore pleaded that the delay should not be condoned.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an undisputed fact that the hearing notices have not been served on the assessee during the First Appellate Proceedings. Therefore, there is no dispute that the assessee is not aware of the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the contents of the petition filed before us seeking condonation of delay as well as the submissions of the Ld. AR, we find that the delay in filing the instant appeals before the Tribunal has not been occurred due to negligence on the part of the assessee and it is only due to lack of knowledge about the passing of the ex- parte orders by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case which are peculiar to the present case, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. At this situation, we make it clear that the decision taken in respect of the present appeals is confined only to these appeals of the assessee considering the peculiar facts and 6 circumstances of the case and this decision cannot be taken as a precedent with respect to condonation of delay. Thus, we hereby condone the delay of 1077 days in filing all the three appeals of the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of these appeals on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. We also caution and direct the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings of the First Appellate Authority for early disposal of the appeals. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2024.