Purshottam Narayanrao Jadhao Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur)
The ITAT Nagpur has condoned a 510-day delay in an income tax appeal, finding the assessee’s reasons, including email oversight, illiteracy, and communication gaps, to be genuine. The case is remitted for merits-based adjudication.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has condoned a significant 510-day delay in an appeal filed by Purshottam Narayanrao Jadhao for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Tribunal, in its order pronounced on June 9, 2025, overturned the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had refused to condone the delay. The case has now been remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on its merits.
The assessee’s appeal before the ITAT itself faced a delay of 246 days. However, the ITAT condoned this delay based on a sworn affidavit provided by the assessee. The affidavit explained that the CIT(A)’s order, dated October 31, 2023, was not downloadable from the Income-tax portal, and the registered email address was not in use, preventing retrieval of the order copy.
Furthermore, the assessee, a labor contractor, stated he was often engaged at site for supervision, lacked a fixed business place, and had an outdated address on the IT portal. He emphasized that he was a “layman and not much literate,” unfamiliar with internet-based tax processes.
The affidavit detailed persistent efforts to obtain the order. The assessee’s tax consultant initially could not download it. Grievances were raised on the income tax portal on November 28, 2023, and December 28, 2023. While the first grievance was “resolved” on January 3, 2024, the order was still not accessible. Another grievance on February 3, 2024, remained unresolved.
Subsequently, the assessee’s counsel emailed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on March 26, 2024, requesting the order. On May 3, 2024, an associate of the counsel physically obtained a hard copy from the Income Tax department. However, a communication gap arose when the associate left her job, delaying the order reaching the assessee. The issue only became clear upon receiving a demand recovery notice, prompting the assessee to immediately initiate the appeal process. The assessee asserted that the delay was unintentional and not for any malafide purpose.
The CIT(A) had previously refused to condone the 510-day delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) held that it was the assessee’s responsibility to ensure compliance, not the accountant’s. It was also reasoned that the assessee voluntarily hired the employee whose email ID was used, and therefore could not avoid the consequences of the employee’s omissions. The CIT(A) stated that allowing such excuses would set a precedent for shifting compliance burdens and that cases should not remain open indefinitely. The argument of unfamiliarity with tax laws and internet use was also dismissed by the CIT(A) as not providing an advantage over compliant assessees.
The ITAT, however, disagreed with the CIT(A)’s reasoning. While no specific judicial precedents were cited in the ITAT’s order, the Tribunal’s decision aligns with the principle of “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay, which is often interpreted liberally to ensure that substantive justice is not defeated by technicalities. Courts frequently consider factors like literacy, access to information, and genuine efforts to comply when evaluating such requests. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the assessee’s appeal on its merits, issuing a speaking order in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
As a result, the assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the substantive issues will now be heard by the first appellate authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT INDORE
Captioned appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 31/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15.
2. There is a delay of 246 days in filing the instant appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. The assessee furnished a duly sworn Affidavit dated 04/03/2025, the contents of which are as under:–
“Sufficient Cause explaining the delay in filing the Appeal
C. That the order was passed by learned CIT(A) on 31.10.2023. Regrettably, said order was not downloadable from the Income-tax portal. Further, the registered email address was not in use and hence, copy of order could not be retrieved.
D. The assessee being a labour contractor was always engaged at the site for supervision of labour and did not have any fixed place of business. The address of the assessee registered with IT portal was also changed and hence no notices could be received. The assessee was not used to working on internet for accessing IT portal and checking e-mails etc. The assessee submits that, he is a lay man and not much literate and does not understand the intricacies of taxation laws and the system-based process of assessment.
E. Subsequently, the assessee’s tax consultant checked the Income-tax portal but couldn’t download appellate order for AY 2014-15 passed by learned CIT(A) on 31.10.2023. It was only then; the consultant apprised the assessee about passing of appellate order. Regrettably, said order could not be downloaded from the Income-tax portal
F. The assessee raised grievance on income tax portal on 28.11.2023 and requested to provide copy of appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) so that, further legal remedy can be sought. Another grievance was raised on 28/12/2023. Grievance raised was resolved on 03.01.2024 but copy of appellate order was not attached/ downloadable with resolution.
G. The assessee again raised grievance on income tax portal on 03.02.2024 and requested to provide copy of appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) so that, further legal remedy can be sought. The grievance raised is not resolved till date.
H. The Counsel of the assessee wrote email to the jurisdictional assessing officer [learned ITO- ward 3(4)] on 26/03/2024, requesting to provide copy of appellate order. In pursuance of diligent online endeavors to procure the Appellant order copy, eventually on 03.05.2024, the counsel Advocate Abhay Agrawal sent his associate, Advocate Manisha Madke, to the office of jurisdictional assessing officer, Income Tax department to obtain the hard copy of the appellate order dated 31.10.2023. Consequently, the order copy was duly received by Advocate Manisha Madke on 03/05/2024. The Counsel had asked her associate to forward copy of order to the assessee. However, the associate left the job and there was some communication gap between her and the deponent.
As on date, the appellate order copy remains un-uploaded on the Income-tax portal. The assessee has been diligently pursuing all avenues to expeditiously obtain the appellate order copy.
J. Subsequently, the mistake was revealed when demand recovery notice was received and deponent enquired his consultant. The assessee immediately thereafter, on the advice of its legal Counsel proceeded to file an appeal against learned CIT(A) order. That the assessee being a contractor was always engaged at the site for supervision of labour and did not have any fixed place of business. Hence, it took further time for assessee to brief the counsel and provide all the relevant documents. That Counsel drafted the appeal and sent papers to the assessee for signature. This took time and finally the appeal is being filed on 5 March 2025 with a delay of 245 days.
K. The assessee prays that, the delay of 245 days be condoned in light of aforesaid circumstances. That there was no malafide intention on assessee’s part for delay in filing the appeal. In view of above it is submitted that there was a bonafide lapse in delay in filing the appeal before your Honour.
Hence, there is an unintentional delay in filing the appeal before your Honour. By delaying the filing of appeal, no undue benefit or advantage is taken by the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the assessee wishes to challenge the assessment order passed by the learned CIT(A) by way of appeal filed before your Honour with a request for condonation of delay.
In view of this, it is prayed that the delay of 245 days may kindly be condoned in order to render the justice.”
3. We find sufficient and reasonable cause to condone the delay of 246 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee before us.
4. While going through the material available before us, it appears from the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) that there was also a delay of 510 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the first appellate authority. Such delay was not condoned by the learned CIT(A), who held as under:–
“3. ……………
It is the responsibility of the person, who is supposed to make compliance as per law and not his accountant to ensure and make such compliance,
2. The appellant voluntarily chose and hired the employee and provided his e-mail id for communication with the Income Tax department and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of his employee,
3. The appellant cannot take excuse of omission of his employee,
4. If this shifting of burden of making compliance is accepted, the person who is supposed to make compliance as per law will use this practice by just producing affidavit(s) from his employee/counsel as these employees and counsel will not have to suffer consequences of non-compliance.
5. No case should be left open for unlimited period,
6. It is responsibility of the appellant to provide correct e mail id to the Income Tax department,
7. His claim of not understanding intricacies of taxation laws and not being much proficient in working on internet do not give him an edge/benefit over compliant assessees.
Considering the reasons stated for delay and facts of the case, the appellant has failed to furnish plausible explanation for the delay and, therefore, the delay in filing of appeal is not liable for condonation. In view of liable for condonation of above discussion, I am satisfied that this case is not a fit case for condonation of delay. It is, therefore, not condoned. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with no comments on grounds of appeal.
4. The appeal is dismissed.”
5. We do not agree with the contentions of the learned CIT(A) and consequently, we direct him to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal on merits and pass speaking order in accordance with law under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/06/2025
