In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Delhi dealt with an appeal filed by the Assessee, Mr. Vikas from Gurgaon, regarding a delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal before the ITAT was directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which dismissed the Assessee’s appeal based on the ground of limitation. Let’s break down the details of this case and understand the Tribunal’s reasoning.
Case Overview:
The Assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order passed by the ITO, Ward 4(5), Gurgaon, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. However, there was a significant delay—over three years—in filing the appeal. The Assessee admitted this delay during the hearing before the ITAT. The Assessee also failed to file an application for condonation of delay when submitting the appeal to the CIT(A), leading to its dismissal on the grounds of limitation.
Issues Presented:
- Delay in Filing the Appeal: The first and foremost issue was the delay in filing the appeal. The Assessee did not submit an application for condonation of delay to the CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
- Condonation of Delay: The Assessee’s representative (Ld. AR) prayed that the issue be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, with the opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay. This would allow the CIT(A) to consider the appeal based on the merits, once the delay issue is addressed.
- No Objection from the Respondent: Interestingly, the Ld. DR (Departmental Representative) did not object to the Assessee’s prayer for remitting the issue to the CIT(A), showing fairness in handling the matter.
Tribunal’s Decision:
Upon considering the facts and hearing both parties, the ITAT observed that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) could lead to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, to prevent such an injustice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This remittance would include the Assessee’s right to file an application for condonation of delay.
The ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A) would need to pass a reasoned order after considering the condonation application. However, the Tribunal also clarified that if the Assessee failed to cooperate with the process during the second round of hearings, the CIT(A) would be free to pass orders in accordance with the law.
Outcome:
In the end, the Assessee’s appeal was allowed, but only for statistical purposes. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, and the Assessee was given the chance to address the delay issue and present the appeal accordingly.
Key Takeaways:
- Timely Filing is Crucial: This case serves as a reminder of the importance of timely filing appeals and submissions to avoid unnecessary delays. If an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time limit, the Assessee could face issues such as dismissal on the grounds of limitation.
- Condonation of Delay: The opportunity to condone delays is available, but it is essential to apply for it at the right time. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the appeal, as seen in this case.
- Fairness in the Legal Process: In this case, the Departmental Representative showed fairness by not objecting to the Assessee’s prayer for remitting the matter back to the CIT(A), allowing the Assessee a chance to address the delay.
Conclusion:
The ITAT’s decision in Vikas vs. ITO ITA No. 2623/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2012-13) reflects the importance of ensuring that procedural requirements, such as timely filing and proper applications for condonation of delay, are followed. The Tribunal’s approach, which prioritizes the prevention of injustice, offers an opportunity for the Assessee to resolve the delay issue and have the appeal heard on its merits. Taxpayers should take note of this ruling and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to avoid delays in their appeals, as such issues can hinder the progress of their cases.
