National Institute Of Aviation Management And Research Society vs The Income Tax Officer

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 25/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2018-19 respectively. 2. There is a delay of 164 days in filing the present Appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 and delay of 103 days in filing the Appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee filed an affidavits contending that the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee and the same have been served on the e-mail id of earlier Officer-in-Charge who has been transferred, thus the Assessee was not aware of passing of the orders impugned. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the captioned Appeals.

Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the captioned Appeals on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeals. the notices issued by the Department have not been served on the Assessee and the same have been served on the e-mail id of earlier Officer-in-Charge who has been transferred, thus the Assessee was not aware of passing of the orders impugned and also contended that delay in filing the Appeals was not deliberate.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of164 and 103 days respectively in filing the above Appeals.

Brief facts of the case are that, assessment orders came to be passed on 17/12/2018 and 24/02/2021 under Section 144 for A.Y 2016-17 and under Section 143(3) for A.Y 2018-19 respectively by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 17/12/2018 and 24/02/2021, Assessee preferred the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 25/03/2025, dismissed the Appeals filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee preferred the present Appeals.

The Ld. Assessee's Representative of the Assessee filed an application for adjournment. Considering the issues involved in the present Appeals, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal by rejecting the said adjournment application.

The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeals.

We have heard and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned orders have been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the First Appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeals of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the fact that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeals afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.