2025 (6) TMI 879 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal condones 450-day delay in filing appeal, emphasizes substantial justice over technical rules

Abdul Hakeem Versus ITO Ward-1 & TPS, Gulbarga

ITAT Bangalore condoned a 450-day delay in filing an appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal held that when ... Condonation of delay of 450 days before this Tribunal - Eligible reasons for delay - HELD THAT:- When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right for injustice being done because of nondeliberate delay. Therefore, we have to prefer substantial justice rather than technicality in deciding the issue. If the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice. Therefore, this Tribunal is bound to remove the injustice by condoning the delay on technicalities. If the delay is not condoned, it would amount to legalizing an illegal order which would result in unjust enrichment on the part of the State by retaining the tax relatable thereto. Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law. Therefore, if we refuse to condone the delay, that would amount to legalize an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. In the case of People Education & Economic Development Society [2006 (1) TMI 215 - ITAT MADRAS-C] wherein held that 'when substantial justice and technical consultation are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay'. Whether delay was excessive or inordinate? - There is no question of any excessive or inordinate when the reason stated by the assessee was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. n fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.[1984 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 450 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. Therefore, in our opinion, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 450 days has to be condoned and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Unaccounted cash - Since the assessee has neither appeared before any of the tax authorities below nor the AO had verified the cash deposits in accordance with the CBDT circulars & therefore taking into consideration totality of the facts of the case as well as in the interest of justice and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to represent his case before the AO. Assessee may be provided with an opportunity to represent his case before the AO. Since the assessee was delinquent and lethargic in pursuing his matter before the tax authorities we impose a cost of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand) upon the assessee which shall be paid to the credit of the income tax department as 'other fees' within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:1. Whether the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically section 253(5), having regard to the reasons stated by the assessee.2. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act is sustainable, particularly considering that the assessment was made ex-parte and the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.3. Whether the addition of Rs. 76,10,500/- under section 69A of the Act, representing unexplained cash deposits, is justified in the absence of documentary evidence substantiating the source of income claimed by the assessee.4. Whether the interest levied under sections 234A and 234B and penalty proceedings initiated under sections 271AAC, 271(1)(b), and 271F of the Act are legally sustainable.5. Whether the matter requires remand to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration in accordance with the CBDT circulars relating to cash deposits during the demonetization period and in light of the assessee's right to be heard.Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealThe relevant legal framework is section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, which allows the Tribunal to admit an appeal beyond the prescribed time if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The Tribunal relied extensively on established judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, which sets out six guiding principles for condonation of delay, emphasizing that justice should not be denied on technical grounds and that every day's delay need not be scrutinized pedantically.The assessee explained that the delay occurred due to reliance on a consultant who filed the appeal before the CIT(A) but failed to take further action or inform the assessee of the dismissal, resulting in unintentional delay. The Tribunal found no mala fide intention or deliberate delay on the part of the assessee. The delay was not excessive when compared to precedents where delays of several years were condoned for reasonable causes.The opposing Revenue representative argued that the assessee's failure to appear before the AO and CIT(A) demonstrated negligence. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the absence of deliberate delay and the interest of substantial justice outweighed technical non-compliance.Applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal held that the balance of convenience favored the assessee and condoned the delay, admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits.Issue 2: Validity of the CIT(A) Order Passed Ex-Parte and Violation of Natural JusticeThe Tribunal noted that both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were passed ex-parte, with the assessee neither appearing nor submitting evidence before the authorities. The assessee contended that this violated principles of natural justice and argued for reconsideration.The Tribunal recognized the fundamental principle that every assessee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Given the ex-parte nature of the orders and the absence of verification of the cash deposits as per CBDT circulars, the Tribunal found that the assessee's right to be heard was compromised.Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the assessee be provided an opportunity to represent the case before the AO, ensuring compliance with natural justice and procedural fairness.Issue 3: Legitimacy of Addition under Section 69A for Unexplained Cash DepositsSection 69A of the Income Tax Act pertains to unexplained cash credits or deposits. The AO had added Rs. 76,10,500/- as unexplained cash deposits, including Rs. 18,74,700/- made during the demonetization period.The assessee claimed that the deposits represented commission income from agricultural products, which after expenses would fall below the taxable threshold, but failed to substantiate this claim with documentary evidence before the AO or CIT(A).The Tribunal observed that the CBDT had issued multiple circulars (dated 21.2.2017, 3.3.2017, 15.11.2017, and 9.8.2019) providing guidelines for verification of cash deposits during the demonetization period. These circulars indicate the nature of investigation and evidentiary requirements for such cases.Since the AO did not verify the deposits in accordance with these circulars and the assessee did not present evidence, the Tribunal held that the addition requires fresh examination. The burden lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposits to exclude them from unexplained cash.The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to verify the deposits per CBDT instructions and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence and be heard.Issue 4: Levy of Interest and Penalty ProceedingsThe assessee challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B and penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC, 271(1)(b), and 271F, arguing they were bad in law and facts.The Tribunal did not decide these issues on merits at this stage, as the appeal was admitted primarily on the question of delay and procedural fairness. The remand to the AO for fresh consideration implies that these issues will be reconsidered in light of the fresh assessment and evidence.Issue 5: Remand for Fresh Consideration and Imposition of CostConsidering the ex-parte nature of the assessment and appeal orders, the lack of verification of cash deposits as per CBDT circulars, and the need to uphold principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for fresh examination.In view of the assessee's lethargy and failure to pursue the matter diligently, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the income tax department within one month, emphasizing the need for responsible conduct in tax proceedings.Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established'When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay.''If the application of the assessee for condoning the delay is rejected, it would amount to legalize injustice on technical ground when the Tribunal is capable of removing injustice and to do justice.''The Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorized by an authority of law.''The burden is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the deposit in order to fall outside the scope of unaccounted cash.''A reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.'Final determinations include:The delay of 450 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.The ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) are set aside to the extent that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity of hearing.The addition of Rs. 76,10,500/- under section 69A is not confirmed and is remitted to the AO for fresh verification and consideration in accordance with CBDT circulars and after affording the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.The levy of interest and penalty proceedings are not adjudicated at this stage and are left open for fresh consideration.A cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed on the assessee for delay and negligence in pursuing the matter.