Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals with a delay ranging from 268 to 360 days. The delay was attributed to the accountant responsible for checking emails leaving the organization and non-receipt of physical notices or the order from the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee only became aware of the ex-parte order through the Income Tax portal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay after finding the reasons stated in the petition to be reasonable and bonafide. The issues in all the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to participate and file submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT was bonafide and warrants condonation. Whether to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 253(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22) AIMS Max Gardenia ACIT, Developers Private Limited, Central Circle-16, Plot No.08, Sector-75, Vs. New Delhi Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301. PAN-AAICA4047Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Abhinav Jaiswal, CA Department by Ms. Sita Srivastava, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [CIT(A), in short] dated 13.06.2024 in Appeal No.10575/2019-20, dated 28.03.2024 in Appeal No.10630/2018-19 and Appeal No. 10028/2020-21 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 respectively. to 3431 /Del/2025 AIMS Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited vs. ACIT 2. Before us, the appeal for AY 2018-19 was filed delay by 268 days, whereas appeals for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21are filed delay by 360 days. The assessee has filed a condonation petition stating the reasons given in delay condonation petition are as under: “This is in reference to Form 36 being filed against the order w/s 250 of the income Tax dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-26, New Delhi, The appeal against order dated 28.03.2024 was to be filed with Hon'ble ITAT within sixty days of service of respective order: as per section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this regard, it is very humbly submitted that accountant of the appellant company who was responsible to check the email id for any notices sent by the Income Tax Department, left the organization due to huge losses which resulted in non-compliance of the notices sent on email by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the appellant company did not receive any notices physically at the address mentioned in the Form 35 filed by the appellant before the CIT(A). Also, the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.03.2024 was not sent physically on the address of the appellant company duly mentioned in the Form 35 filed before the CIT(A). Further, the appellant company came to know about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) only after an employee of the appellant company checked the Income Tax portal in order to check the status of the appeal filed. On checking the Income Tax portal on 08.05.2025, he came to know that the Ld. CIT(A) has already decided the appeal ex-parte. Thereafter, the appellant company contacted its Tax Consultant and subsequently the appellant company is filing this appeal. There is no intentional delay in filing of the appeal and delay is on account of reasons beyond the control of the appellant company. In view of the above, your honour is requested to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before ITAT as the delay in filing the appeal is due to bonafide reasons.”
The reasons stated in the petition filed for condonation of delay in all the three years, the reasons stated are same. After perusal of the condonation petition it is found that the reason stated therein being reasonable and assessee has been able to establish that there was bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the delay is condoned and all the three appeal are admitted for adjudication on merits. to 3431 /Del/2025 AIMS Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited vs. ACIT 4. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that the mail id given in Form 35 was of the accountant who left the job and since no physical notice of hearing was received, compliance could not be made before the ld. CIT(A). It is thus prayed that matter be set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand ld. Sr DR stated that ld. CIT(A) has provided as many as seven opportunity of hearing however, the assessee has not bothered to even make compliance at least on a single occasion therefore, he requested to confirm the order of ld. CIT(A).
Heard the parties and perused the material available on records. From the perusal of the order of ld. CIT(A) it is seen that despite of issue of various notices, assessee has failed to make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was compelled to dispose the appeals of the assessee by confirming various additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is true that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support the claims. Under these facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the issues in all the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit in accordance with law after giving opportunities to both the parties. The assessee is also directed to participate in the appellate proceedings and filed the detail submissions and necessary replies within the time limit provided by the Ld. CIT(A). With these directions, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.