Case Law Details
Tirupati Prasad Sahu Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack)
In a notable decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Cuttack condoned a 145-day delay in the case of Tirupati Prasad Sahu vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO). The delay, attributed to email communications being misplaced in spam folders, highlights the challenges taxpayers face in the digital age.
The case centers on an appeal filed by Tirupati Prasad Sahu against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated February 27, 2024. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-2011. The primary contention was a significant delay of 145 days in filing the appeal.
The assessee’s representative, Shri P. K. Mishra, argued that the delay was due to the non-receipt of the Assessing Officer’s order in time, as the emails had gone to the spam folder. He also pointed out a discrepancy in the dates mentioned in the order, which contributed to the confusion. The representative further emphasized that even if the depreciation was not claimed by the assessee, it should be allowed as per statutory provisions.
On the other hand, the Senior Departmental Representative (DR), Shri Charan Dass, suggested that the issue be remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, acknowledging the possible explanation for the delay.
The tribunal, upon considering the submissions from both sides, noted the increasing instances where taxpayers did not receive orders sent via email, often due to them being directed to spam folders. Recognizing the technological challenges and the provided explanations, the tribunal deemed the delay excusable.
The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities, especially in cases where the delay is plausibly explained. Consequently, the ITAT condoned the 145-day delay and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, ensuring that the assessee receives a fair opportunity to present their case.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CUTTACK
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 27.2.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/20 09-/10216527 for the assessment year 20 10-2011
2. Shri P. K. Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Chara n Dass, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
3. It was submitted by ld AR that the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 145 days before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) has also recognized that there was a confusion in regard to mentioning of date of the order being 22.7.2022 and 22.9.2022. The reasons given for the delay was that the assessee did not receive the order of the Assessing Officer in time. Ld CIT(A) has also recognized that the ITBA system shows that the order u/s.154 of the Act is dated 27.9.2022 and was served through e-mail of the assessee. It was the submission that the issue is in regard to claim of depreciation. It was the submission that in any case even the depreciation is not claimed by the assessee, the depreciation is liable to be allowed as per the statute itself whether the assessee claims or not. It was the submission that on mere technicality, on appeal before the ld CIT(A), substantial justice should not be denied.
4. In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts in the present case, we are seized of many cases where assessee mistakenly did not receive the orders sent through email as many of these orders are going to span folders. In any case, there is a delay of 145 days. This being so, considering the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that the explanation is a possible explanation and consequently, we condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A). We are not giving any findings on merits of the case insofar as the ld CIT(A) has not given any findings on merits. This being so, we restore the issue in the appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Author Bio
