2022 (3) TMI 1595 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT condones 627-day delay in appeal filing due to ex-parte order passed without assessee's knowledge

Sandhya Mallick Versus ITO, Ward 2 (2) Bhubaneswar

The ITAT Cuttack condoned a 627-day delay in filing an appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without ... Delay in filling of an appeal before ITAT - appeal is time barred by 627 days - sufficient and reasonable cause for delay or not? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. It has come to knowledge of the assessee when the assessee was informed to comply with the penalty notices that the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has been rejected. Then at the instance of the assessee, the previous A.R. visited the income tax site and came to the know that the order has already been passed by the Ld. CIT(A), on ex-parte basis. The assessee has not received any notice for hearing of the appeal as well as the order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee was not aware about the passing of CIT(A)'s order. However, as soon as assessee came to know of penalty notices, being issued against her, she consulted present Counsel and on the basis his advice, the present appeal has been filed though with a delay of 627 days. No culpable negligence or mala fide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay. Therefore we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Another contention raised that due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law. We are of the view that the order was passed ex parte without considering the submissions of the assessee. Hence, the assessee was not provided proper opportunity to putforth her case. There is merit in the submissions of the assessee. The assessee has been cheated by the Ld. Counsel/ld. AR and therefore the assessee has submitted that the assessee in the instant case has not got the natural justice and therefore we are of the view that the assessee should not suffer because of gross negligence of the Ld. AR. Remit the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh - Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Appeal against order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2014-15; Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Sufficient cause for delay; Principles of substantial justice; Remitting case back to CIT(A) for fresh decision.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed 627 days late against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee cited reasons for the delay, including the inadvertent mistake of the authorized representative in communication details, lack of knowledge about the order due to not receiving a hard copy, and subsequent engagement of a new representative upon learning of the dismissal of the appeal.2. The authorized representative of the assessee argued that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee, emphasizing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the situation. Reference was made to legal precedents where delays were condoned due to similar circumstances of inaction by previous representatives.3. The Senior DR opposed the condonation petition, asserting that the assessee should have actively followed up with the counsel regarding the appeal proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had no knowledge of the order until penalty notices were received, prompting the engagement of a new representative and the subsequent filing of the appeal.4. The Tribunal considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the elasticity of 'sufficient cause' and the preference for substantial justice over technical considerations. In applying these principles to the case at hand, the Tribunal found no culpable negligence or mala fide intent on the part of the assessee in the delayed filing of the appeal.5. Due to the lack of proper opportunity for the assessee to present her case before the CIT(A) and the perceived negligence of the previous authorized representative, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a fair hearing. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal principles applied by the Tribunal, and the ultimate decision rendered in the case.