Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 682 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay of 349 days in filing the present appeal - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non issue of notices at the new address of the assessee - appeal of the assessee was decided by impugned ex-parte order - notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) at the old address and the assessee has already sifted to the new address - HELD THAT - It is clear that after the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), Ajmer the assessee never appeared and attended the proceedings and consequently the appeal of the assessee was decided by impugned ex-parte order. The assessee has explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal that the assessee has not received the impugned order and came to know about the same only when the order passed /s 271(1)(c) dated 12.03.2020 was served upon the assessee at the new address through the process server of the Department. There is no dispute about the fact that because of the failure on the part of the assessee to intimate the new address to the CIT(A) the notices issued by the CIT(A) as well as impugned order could not be received by the assessee. We find that explanation of non receipt of the impugned order by the assessee is factually correct however, the reason for such non receipt of the impugned order is the failure on the part of the assessee to give the fresh address to the ld. CIT(A). Therefore,when the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee vide impugned ex-parte order, the delay in filing the appeal is due to mistake on the part of the assessee which cannot be regarded as a deliberate or willful default on the part of the assessee. It is settled proposition of law if the cause of delay as explained by the assessee is found to be factual correct then laps on the part of the assessee cannot be a ground for rejecting the condonation of delay. The cause of substantial justice has to be preferred then the technical consideration. Therefore, even if there is lapse or inaction on the part of the assessee a justice oriented liberal approach has to be taken while considering the condonation of delay. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we condone the delay of 349 days subject to cost of 2500/-. When notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) at the old address and the assessee has already sifted to the new address then considering the facts and circumstance of the case as well as in the interest of justice we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal - Condonation of delay sought by the assessee. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11, with a delay of 349 days. The assessee explained the delay due to not receiving notices and the impugned order as the address was changed after selling the factory premises. The ld. AR contended that the delay was not deliberate but due to the bonafide reason of address change, duly intimated to other departments. The AR cited various legal precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technical considerations for condonation of delay. The Revenue opposed the condonation, arguing that the assessee's reasons were not valid, as notices were sent to the address provided in Form no. 35. The Revenue contended that the delay was due to the assessee's negligence in pursuing the appeal and only acted upon receiving a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Revenue considered the explanations as gross negligence on the part of the assessee and opposed the condonation of delay. After considering the submissions and the record, it was found that the assessee had not informed the ld. CIT(A) about the change of address. The appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the assessee's failure to provide the new address to the ld. CIT(A). Despite the lapse on the part of the assessee, it was held that the delay was not willful or deliberate. The Tribunal emphasized the cause of substantial justice over technical considerations and, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay of 349 days subject to a cost of 2500/-. Regarding the grounds raised by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, providing the assessee with another opportunity for a hearing. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. In conclusion, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee with another opportunity for a hearing.
|