ITAT Bangalore condones 367-day delay which was due to Technical Glitch

Elegant Embassy III Apartment Owners Association Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore ruled in favor of the Elegant Embassy III Apartment Owners Association, setting aside an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to a procedural issue. The association had filed an appeal against an order from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), but there was a 367-day delay in submission. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The association argued that the delay was due to a technical issue—its registered email ID was linked to the previous president, who was unavailable to provide the One-Time Password (OTP) needed for updates. The newly elected committee faced difficulties updating the email ID, leading to an unintended delay. The association, a non-profit entity managed by volunteers, claimed that rejecting the appeal on technical grounds would cause undue hardship.

After reviewing the case, ITAT acknowledged the genuine reasons for the delay and the assurance from the association’s representative regarding compliance. Since the Departmental Representative did not strongly oppose reconsideration, ITAT ruled in favor of remitting the case back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed CIT(A) to condone the delay and review the appeal on its merits, ensuring due process. Additionally, ITAT instructed the association to comply with all requirements and avoid unnecessary adjournments. As a result, the appeal was partially allowed for statistical purposes, granting the association another opportunity to present its case.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27/06/2024 in ITA No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066121322(1) for the assessment year 2022-23.

2. At the outset, we note that there was a delay of 367 days in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which was not condoned. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) in limine.

3. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee is an Apartment Owners Association. The Managing Committee and office bearers of such associations are elected every two years on an honorary basis. The committee members act voluntarily and do not receive any remuneration from the association.

3.2 It was further submitted that the new committee was elected on 19/05/2022 for a period of two years. However, the email ID furnished in the Income Tax records belonged to the earlier president. The assessee attempted to update the email ID but encountered technical issues in receiving the One-Time Password (OTP), as the previous president was outside India at the relevant time. This resulted in the delay in filing the appeal.

4 The learned AR emphasized that the assessee is a non-profit organization, and not condoning the delay would cause significant hardship. Therefore, the AR requested that the matter be remitted to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The AR also undertook the responsibility to ensure compliance before the CIT(A).

5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any serious objections to remitting the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.

6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials on record. Taking into account the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal and the assurance of the learned AR regarding compliance, we are of the opinion that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issue afresh on its merits in accordance with the provisions of law. It is also directed the assessee to make necessary compliance before the ld. CIT-A and not to seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in court on 17^th day of December, 2024