Assessee's Appeal Admitted Despite Delay: Tribunal Emphasizes Justice, Pandemic Impact

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the ex parte order was passed under Section 271B of the IT Act. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to reasons including non-receipt of the order and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach towards condonation of delay when substantial justice is at stake, ultimately admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits for multiple years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ex parte order under Section 271B of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Confirmation of penalty by the CIT(A).
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ex parte order under Section 271B of the IT Act, 1961:
The assessee contested that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order under Section 271B without serving notice for a hearing. The assessee claimed that they were unaware of the appellate order until the rejection of their application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte and the assessee had not received any notice for the hearing or the order itself. Thus, the Tribunal considered the assessee's claim that they were not given an opportunity to be heard.

2. Confirmation of penalty by the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) confirmed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed by the AO under Section 271B. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the penalty itself but focused on the procedural aspects and the assessee's right to appeal.

3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The primary issue was the delay of 515 days in filing the appeal, which the assessee attributed to not receiving the order and being unaware of it until much later. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, emphasizing a liberal approach towards condonation of delay when substantial justice is at stake. The Tribunal found no malafide intent or deliberate delay by the assessee and noted that the delay did not benefit the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to be admitted for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay. The appeals for the subsequent years (A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16) with similar delays were also admitted following the same rationale. The Tribunal directed the Registry to list the matters for hearing in due course.

---