ITAT Condones 933-Day Delay: Appeal Restored After Tax Consultant’s Death, Case Remanded for Fresh Hearing:

ITAT Condones 933-Day Delay: Appeal Restored After Tax Consultant’s Death, Case Remanded for Fresh Hearing A taxpayer filed her appeal very late because her old tax consultant fell ill and consequently died from his illness. The ITAT accepted her reason as genuine for the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the case to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The present appeal has been filed by a taxpayer named Anjanaa Chattopadhyay (Appellant) against the Income Tax Officer-15(1)(4), Mumbai (Respondent), in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench “A” before Shri. Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) And Miss. Padmavathys (Accountant Member). The case is related to the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal had been filed challenging an order dated November 21, 2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [(CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2009-10. The impugned order originated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1)(4), Mumbai (AO), which was issued under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on December 29, 2011. The appeal was filed 933 days late. The assessee had sought condonation of the day due to genuine reasons. The authorised representative of the assessee explained that the assessee was not responsible for this delay, as she was not even aware of the notices and orders passed by CIT(A). The assessee, being a senior citizen, had placed complete reliance on her tax consultant, who was also a senior citizen and was suffering from a serious illness during his work time. Consequently, he died from his illness. The assessee was not aware of her IT Portal's ID and Password, hence could not open it and therefore was not even aware of the issued order and notices. During the period when the order was passed, I was in Kolkata to look after my mother. Assessee came to know about the NFAC order only when she received a recovery notice and then appointed a new tax consultant, who discovered the missed order. These were the reasons why the assessee could not file an appeal responding to the order timely manner. After that, she immediately filed the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee has supported all these points with an affidavit. The authorised representative of the department did not strongly oppose her request for condonation of the delay. The tribunal noted that there was a delay of 933 days in filing the appeal; however, the reasons given by the assessee were genuine and supported by documents. To announce its final decision, ITAT cited an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court titled N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998), where the tribunal stated that limitation rules are meant to ensure discipline, not to deny justice. Hence, there was a reasonable cause of delay. Hence, the tribunal allowed the appeal, allowing the prayed condonation of delay. The tribunal also found that the earlier appeal before CIT(A) was also delayed by 635 days; however, CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's request for condonation of delay without even properly examining the actual issue. The Tribunal cited a Gujarat High Court case (Rajendrakumar Maneklal Shah HUF v. CIT), which said that if there’s a reasonable cause for delay, justice should not be denied. Therefore, ITAT sent the case back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration from the beginning, to take a lenient view on the 635-day delay, and to give the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case.