Sh. Rattan Singh vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Faridabad

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These three appeal by the assessee for AY 2014-15 to 2016-17 are directed against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years.

The appeal of the assessee for the AY 2014-15 is time barred by 369 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The delay in filing of appeal has been attributed to non-service of order passed by the CIT(A). It is contended that the order was sent by the CIT(A) on email address [email protected], whereas, the correct email address for communication of notices and the order as provided in Form NO. 35 is [email protected]. The assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) after the assessee received notice u/s. 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 03.04.2026 on his email address [email protected]. The assessee contacted the Counsel for advice and necessary action on notice u/s.221(1) of the Act. The Counsel checked portal of the Department, then the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee, thereafter, on 04.05.2026 filed appeal against the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) dated 28.02.2025. The reason explained by the assessee for delay in filing appeal appears to be bonafide.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason 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 Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.

In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, 2002 SCC (3) 195/2002 SCR (2) 77 the Hon’ble Court 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, in light of facts and the law expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court, the delay of 369 days in filing of appeal is condoned.

Ms. Shilpa Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) as the notices were being sent on wrong email address. The assessee in Form No. 35 had given email address i.e. [email protected]. No notice of hearing was received by the assessee on the said email address. Hence, the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A).

The ld. DR supporting the impugned order submits that the assessee is non-co-operative and has failed to respond to the notices issued by CIT(A).

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. Considering the submissions of the assessee and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The CIT(A) shall issue notice(s) to the assessee on email address furnished in Form No. 35. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.

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

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. None appearance of assessee before the CIT(A) is attributed to non-service of notices. It is alleged that the notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee on wrong email address. I find that the facts in the present appeals are similar to the facts in ITA No.5045/Del/2026. The findings given in the aforesaid appeal would mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeals. Thus, for parity of reasons impugned orders are set aside and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose in similar terms.

To sum up, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.