The appeals filed by Sunni Hanfi Mashayaki Momin Trust pertained to Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2017-18 and were directed against the orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals before the Tribunal were filed with a delay of 495 days.

The assessee sought condonation of delay, explaining that the impugned appellate orders were received on the email address of its consultant, who failed to take appropriate steps or advise the assessee regarding filing of appeals. It was contended that the delay was inadvertent and not intentional, and that the assessee had a reasonable case on merits.

The Revenue opposed the condonation, submitting that the assessee had consistently failed to appear or respond before the lower authorities despite multiple opportunities and that statutory notices were duly served at the registered email address.

After considering the submissions and material on record, the Tribunal observed that although the assessee had been negligent and lacked due diligence in prosecuting its case before the lower authorities, there was no material to suggest any mala fide intent or deliberate attempt to misuse the appellate process. The Tribunal reiterated the settled principle that procedural lapses should not ordinarily defeat substantial justice and that matters should, as far as possible, be decided on merits.

Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned in the interest of justice, subject to safeguards. The Tribunal noted that the assessments as well as the appellate orders had been passed ex parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, resulting in the issues not being adjudicated on merits.

To balance the equities and ensure diligence in future proceedings, the Tribunal imposed costs of ₹10,000 for each assessment year, directing the assessee to deposit the same with the State Legal Aid Authority and to furnish proof of payment before the Assessing Officer.

Subject to payment of the costs, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee a proper and effective opportunity of being heard and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the earlier ex-parte orders. It was further clarified that failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the directions or to cooperate in the proceedings would entitle the Assessing Officer to proceed in accordance with law without granting further indulgence.

Accordingly, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

SOURCE: https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1767782582-Yhpujs-1-TO.pdf

Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.