Mohd. Abrar vs ITO Ward 2(3)(2)

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 17.10.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17.

This appeal is time barred by 239 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. A perusal of application reveals that the delay in filing of appeal is attributed to non-serving of notices and the order by the CIT(A). From the impugned order, it is not emanating as to how the notice of hearing was served on the assessee. From perusal of Form 35 it is seen that against the column- “Whether the notices/communication may be sent on email?” The assessee has marked “No”. Thus, the assessee has opted for service of notice other than e-mail. Apparently, the CIT(A) without service of notice through the mode as preferred by the assessee and provisioned u/s.282 of the Act, has passed the order in ex-parte proceedings. The reason for delay in filing of appeal appears to be bonafide, hence, delay of 239 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of assessee ex-prate on the ground that the appeal is time barred by 589 days. The assessee in Form No.35 has mentioned the date of service of order (assessment order dated 27.03.2022) as 07.12.2023. The assessee has explained the reason for delay in receiving the assessment order as the order sent through electronic mode was never served on the assessee. The assessee is a resident of village Sogiyawara, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahr. The assessee is purportedly not computer literate and does not have its own email id. The assessee has been giving email addresses of others for service of notice. Thus, the assessee is dependent on others with regard to intimation of service of notice or orders. This explains reasons for non-receipt of notices or orders issued by the AO or the CIT(A). The explanation furnished by the assessee for delay in filing of appeal is plausible in the facts, of case, thus, constitute sufficient cause.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has held that acceptance of reason given by the appellant/petitioner explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.

Thus, after considering entire facts of the case, the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. I deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.