AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The instant batch of four appeals pertains to the single assessee herein namely, Etcetera Entertainment. All other relevant details thereof stand tabulated as under:
Aggrieved by the Assessment Orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi alongwith request to condone the delay of 518 days in quantum proceedings as well as delay of 345 days in three penalty proceedings, as referred above. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation given for above said delay and concluded that the assessee/appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and accordingly the appeals were dismissed on this account.
Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the assessee is in appeals before us.
At the time of hearing, Id. AR at the very outset, submitted that the Id. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal and despite sufficient cause being shown by the assessee which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay may be condoned and the matter be restored to Id. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh. Per contra, Id. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the Id. CIT(A) has stated that the assessee has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay and thus the appeal has rightly been dismissed by the CIT(A), which does not need any interference.
We have heard the Ld. AR and Ld. DR and examined the rival submissions available on record. We note that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee/appellant has made out the following reasons for seeking condonation of delay, the extract of the same are as under:
'2. That the above delay caused due to bonafide and reasonable cause as explained in subsequent paras.
3.That it so happened that the complete Re-Asst have been done through ITBA module (faceless asst.) and the registered email id as mentioned in the e-filing account [email protected] was pertaining to my account officer who have assisted and Who used to work for me earlier, but due to my health issue/deteriorating, my account officer left the job and the work also stopped and I started doing my treatment, due to which I could not get any information about the assessment on time, but on 22 July 2025, I came to know about this from Income Tax Department call, then I contacted the Professional Council and started the proceedings to file my appeal, in this regard, I am attaching a copy of my medical certificate as evidence, which shows my health problem, hence assesses was complete unaware about the Assessment order and therefore not able to file any Appeal in Time. Necessary medical certificate is attached for kind considerate in this regard.
4.That very recently on 22.07.2025 assessee got intimation about assessment order on department call and portal routine check by myself of with demand of A.Y 2019-20, then only for the first-time assessee got the information about passing of assessment order as well as penalty order. On receipt of this information assessee immediately contacted my FCA who had filed his detailed reply during the first assessment order and on advised and from the assistance of that professional this appeal is being filed. Hence, appeal stands filed within 30 days from the date, of receipt of information i.e. 22.07.2025.
5.That the delay took place for a bonafide and reasonable cause, therefore the delay be please condoned."
We now proceed to extract the relevant finding of the Ld. First Appellate Authority which find mentioned in para 5.3 in the quantum proceedings as under:
'5.3 In this case, it is claimed by the appellant that in ITBA portal the registered e-mail ID mentioned belongs to his account officer who left the job. It is further claimed that due to health issue, the appellant was unfit to fulfill his regular obligations. The reasons mentioned by the appellant is not only acceptable but misguide also. On verification of assessment proceedings, it is found that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant submitted compliances to the statutory notices issued. Even the appellant has filed return of income on 22.11.2023 in response to the notice under section 148 dated 28.03.2023. It is further found that the appellant replied to the SON on 19.12.2023 and also furnished adjournment letter on various dates during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the appellant as well as his chartered accountant was aware of the ongoing proceedings under section 148A of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, the AO has issued penalty SON under section 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) dated 25.01.2024 fixing the case on 09.02.2024 and another notice was issued on 24.06.2024 fixing the case on 09.07.2024. But the appellant was non-compliant till date during the course of penalty proceedings also. Further, the appellant is a registered firm incorporated on 05.11.2014 and there are two partners in the firm viz R Ramaya and M Varadharajan. Thus, both the partners and the counsel of the appellant were well aware of the ongoing re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, both the partners are equally responsible to comply the statutory notices and file the appeal within the time stipulated under the provision of IT Act. Thus, the appellant failed to adduce any cogent reason for non- filing of the appeal within the stipulated time."
We have noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2.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 cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
In view of above, it is well settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid well settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the instant case is fit for condoning the delay in dispute, because the explanation given by assessee before the Id. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. In our view, dismissal of the appeals against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order against the quantum proceeding is set aside. It is noted that the assessment order was also passed u/s 144 of the Act without effective representation by the assessee, hence, we deem it expedient to restore the matter in the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Since the appellate order against the quantum proceedings has been set aside and matter has been remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as aforesaid, the consequent penalty orders against the penalty proceedings also standset aside, in the aforesaid manner. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 8165 to 8168/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose, in the aforesaid manner.