The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 129-day delay in filing the appeal due to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) CIT(E) failure to serve email notices caused by a technical glitch in the office. The tribunal remanded the rejection of registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 matter back to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Manav Seva Mandir, assessee applied for registration under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) on 20.09.2023. The assessee was not aware of the fact that his registration was rejected. When he got to know about the information he appealed before the ITAT, Ahmedabad. However, the assessee had a 129-day delay in filing the appeal.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here
The assessee applied for the condonation of a delay of 129 days in filing the appeal. The assessee reasoned that he was unaware of the notices uploaded on the e-portal by the CIT(E). The assessee claimed that he did not receive any communication by email, messages, or any post which was why he could not comply with the notices resulting in the rejection of the application under section 80G(5).
On the other hand, the revenue’s counsel accepted that CIT(E) could not serve the email notice due to a technical glitch in the office. The counsel claimed that the email ID of the assessee could not be fetched due to a technical error when the order was sent. However, the counsel highlighted that the assessee can access the notices through his ID on the e-portal and the assessee would have received alerts on the registered mobile number regarding such communication.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here
The two-member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) carefully heard both sides’ arguments and observed the fact that the delay happened because of the lack of communication and there was no ill motive. The tribunal observed that the email confirmation from the CIT(E) office shows that the assessee was not properly served with the notice order via email which caused the delay in the process.
The tribunal cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353] which supports a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to serve justice. Therefore, the tribunal decided to allow the assessee to present his case before the CIT(E). The tribunal directed the CIT(E) to give adequate opportunity for the assessee before deciding the matter.
Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here
Thus, the tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
