SH. JAGDISH SINGH,NABHA V. ITO, WARD, NABHA

ITA 695/CHANDI/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Jagdish Singh, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 18.10.2022. The appeal was initially dismissed ex-parte, leading to a delay of 332 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the delay was due to the appellant's unawareness of the ex-parte decision until notified by the ITO, Ward Nabha. The Tribunal, referencing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations, decided to condone the delay and restore the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 28838 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, Indian Limitation Act, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJMOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ,चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.695/CHD/2023 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Jagdish Singh, Street No.6,Defence Colony, Village Alohran Kalan, Nabha Vs. बनाम The ITO, Ward, Nabha èथायीलेखासं./PAN No: BCYPS1417C अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT Ĥ×यथȸ/REPSONDENT ( PHYSICAL HERING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr.DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 03.10.2024 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2024 आदेश/Order The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order dt 18.10.2022 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation by 332 days. The Counsel of the Assessee brought to our notice of the Bench the condonation application as well as the Affidavit of Shri Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Dayal Singh 695-Chd-2023 – Jagdish Singh, Nabha 2 resident of Street No.6,Ddefence Colony, Almoran Kalah, Patiala wherein, the Assessee has explained the reasons attributable to late filing of appeal by 332 days. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record including the affidavit, I find that the delay in filing the appeal is purely for the reasons that the Assessee was not knowing about the ex-parte decision by CIT(A) dismissing the appeal in limine and it was only after on receipt of notice dated 9.11.2023 through ITO, Ward Nabha, the Assessee came to know about the appeal having been decided ex-parte. 3. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section 249 of Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction 695-Chd-2023 – Jagdish Singh, Nabha 3 of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon’ble High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, Hon’ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353 wherein it has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 4. In the light of above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that there was a bonafide lapse at the end of the assessee because the assessee will not gain anything by making his appeal time barred. The delay in filing the appeal was not adopted as a strategy to litigate with the Revenue. Considering the bonafide mistake, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 695-Chd-2023 – Jagdish Singh, Nabha 4 5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, I note that the proceedings before the authorities were ex- parte as the Assessee failed to appear before both the authorities. I note that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) has been made in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which mandates that the CIT(A) shall decide the appeal in writing, considering the point of determination, his decision thereon and also reasons for the said decision. I also note that before the A.O. also, the order was ex-parte. Therefore, the ends of justice would be well served if the appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, I restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh on merits. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04.10.2024. Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR ) Accountant Member “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 695-Chd-2023 – Jagdish Singh, Nabha 5 3. आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "