ITAT Condones 648-Day Delay and Remands Case for Fresh Adjudication

The ITAT condoned a 648-day delay with a cost of Rs 50,000, set aside the ex parte CIT(A) order, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing to the assessee.

The present appeal has been filed by Apollo Cranes Pvt Ltd against the DCIT, Circle in the ITAT New Delhi, challenging the order dated December 28, 2018, passed by NFAC, Delhi for AY 2016-17.

The order of the CIT(A), dated October 12, 2023, was duly communicated to the assessee on October 12, 2023. Despite such communication, no response was received from the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also for non-prosecution simpliciter.

Being aggrieved with this decision, the assessee then approached the tribunal. At the beginning, the Tribunal noticed that the appeal was filed late by about 648 days. The assessee explained that the order of the CIT(A) was sent to the email and mobile number of their employee, Mr Manoj Kumar, who was working as Accounts Manager. His contact details were mentioned in Form No. 35. However, Mr Manoj Kumar did not inform the assessee about the order. Later, when the assessee hired a Chartered Accountant in September 2025, they came to know about the order. After that, the appeal was filed on October 9, 2025.

During the hearing, the assessee’s lawyer argued that the delay happened because the assessee was not aware of the order and that it was not intentional. He requested that the delay should be forgiven. On the other hand, the DR opposed this request and said that the order was properly sent to the email given by the assessee, so the fault was of the assessee and his employee.

After considering all the facts, the Tribunal felt that although there was a long delay and some carelessness by the assessee, there was also a reasonable cause. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay. However, this was allowed on the condition that the assessee must pay Rs 50,000 to the Legal Aid Authority of the Delhi High Court within 15 days and submit proof of payment.

The Tribunal also noticed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee and without deciding the case on its merits. The Tribunal stated that it is the duty of the CIT(A) to decide appeals on merits after giving proper opportunity.

Therefore, the Tribunal cancelled the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and sent the case back for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) has been directed to hear the assessee properly and then decide the matter again according to law. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal only for statistical purposes.