TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 464 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the reason for such delay which are as under : "1) That said scrutiny proceedings for AY 2010-11 and AY 2012-13 were completed by making some additions and raising tax demand. 2) That against both the assessment orders I had preferred an appeal through my regular consultant Mr. Manish. 3) That I was being informed that requisite submission is being made in pursuance of the Appeal filed. 4) That, however, somewhere in month of August or September 2023, I came to know that both the Appeals have been dismissed because of non- appearance. Further, upon getting the IT e-filing portal verified it was informed to me that even email for CIT(A) hearing was sent to [email protected], which is the email id belonging to said consultant. 5) That, when this aspect was confronted to my consultant, it was informed to me that after COVID-19, only one notice of hearing was sent for each case in the month of June and July 2023. And in said month he (Consultant) was occupied with ITR filings. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owever due to circumstances beyond my control present delay has occurred. b. that is to say the delay is not at all intentional and has not benefitted me in any sense. 16) That, I humbly request and pray before Hon'ble ITAT that the delay which have occurred be kindly condoned and allow me to present my case, in the interest of justice." 2.3 In light of the above reason stated by the assessee in his affidavit, we find some merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. 2.4 We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, 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 non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard. Accordingly, the order so passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC be kindly set aside and Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this regard. 5. It is humbly prayed that the delay in filing present appeal be kindly condoned and Appellant be allowed to present his appeal in the interest of justice. 6. It is humbly prayed that the Appellant be kindly allowed to file any additional evidences in the interest of justice, if any. 7. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and carries on the business of civil contractor. For AY 2012-13, the assessee did not file any return of income as his income was marginally taxable. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") issued notice on 23.03.2019 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 04.12.2019 declaring therein net taxable income of Rs. 2,08,040/-. The main issue in the reassessment proceedings pertains to the source of investment of Rs. 73,10,000/- made by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not intentional and that there a genuine reason for such non-compliance. He submitted that notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly falls within the COVID-19 pandemic period and that only one notice of hearing was issued post COVID-19. Further the notices were issued on the email-id of his tax consultant which skipped his attention and therefore did not come to the knowledge of the assessee on time. 7.1 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) in Income Tax Appeal No. 2336 of 2013, dated 25.04.2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that "the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act". The Ld. AR further submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity, is in a position to explain the source of the alleged income and substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by filing all the requisite submissions/documentary evidence in support of his claim in respect of various grounds of appeal raised before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He, therefore, prayed....