Non-compliance due to receipt of notice in SPAM folder is sufficient cause for condonation of delay

Natthi Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

ITAT Jaipur held that non-compliance due to receipt of notice in SPAM folder is sufficient cause shown for the delay. Accordingly, delay of 223 days in filing of an appeal condoned.

Facts- The assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 223 days. The assessee in his prayer for condonation of delay prayed that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was received directly into the SPAM folder of the AR of the assessee. On being aware the assessee has filed this appeal with the reasons as supported by the affidavit of his AR also.

Conclusion- The bench noted that the assessment proceeding were not attended by the ld. AR of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee was presented by the same AR of the assessee for which notices were went in the SPAM folder of the ld. AR of the assessee’s email account and therefore, the assessee did not get a fair chance to represent the merits of his case before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, it is evident that the assessee is represented / assisted by an expert in the field and therefore, the assessee may have acted upon the advise of that expert in the field and was dependent on the advise of his counsel. Not being an expert he had engaged a professional who was supposed to take care of the statutory The delay if any was caused due to the inabilities being faced by his tax consultant. The appellant was not going to gain any benefit because of the delayed filling and his conduct was not contumacious. The bench noted that the appellant was serious and interested in prosecuting the appeal in as much as he had already engaged tax consultant and also made the payment of the filling of fees of appeal before the first appellate authority. We also find that while filling appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the ld. AR of the assessee also filed a condonation petition before the ld. CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal.

It is settled principles as laid down by the apex court as well as other courts on the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee has explained sufficient cause of delay by filling a detailed affidavit and also reasons for not appearing before the ld. CIT(A).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.