Inadvertent Email Oversight: ITAT remits Appeal to CIT(A) for Adjudication on Merits with ₹15,000 Cost on Assessee [Read Order]

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, has remanded a delayed income tax appeal back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication on merits.

The relief was granted to the appellant-assessee, subject to payment of ₹15,000 as cost, after it was found that the delay in filing the appeal stemmed from the taxpayer’s failure to check his registered email regularly.

The case pertained to Assessment Year 2017–18, wherein Soliya had originally filed his return declaring an income of ₹6.55 lakh. However, upon receiving information that the assessee had allegedly purchased an extruder machinery worth ₹33.60 lakh in cash, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

Due to non-response from the assessee despite several opportunities, the AO made an addition of ₹33.60 lakh under Section 69 (unexplained investment) read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Additionally, a deduction of ₹24,330 claimed under Section 80C was disallowed, leading to an assessed income of ₹40.40 lakh.

Challenging the reassessment, the assessee attempted to file an appeal before the CIT(A), but the appellate authority rejected it on grounds of a 56-day delay, citing absence of any valid reason or affidavit justifying the delay. Though the assessee had indicated an affidavit would be submitted later, no such explanation or documentation was provided during the proceedings.

When the matter reached ITAT, the assessee, represented by Authorised Representatives Shri Biren Shah and Shri Gulab Thakor, submitted a sworn affidavit acknowledging that the delay was due to an inadvertent failure to monitor the registered email ID regularly, which led to missing departmental notices and orders. The lapse, they argued, was neither deliberate nor mala fide but stemmed from a genuine oversight.

The Revenue, represented by Senior Departmental Representative Shri Mukesh Jain, opposed condonation and insisted that if allowed, a cost should be imposed.

After hearing both sides, the ITAT bench comprising Shri Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) invoked the principle of “substantial justice over technical considerations.”

It was noted by the tribunal that the delay was minor—less than two months and not driven by mala fide intentions. Emphasizing that justice should not be denied due to technical lapses, the Tribunal remitted the case back to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here

However, in balancing equities, the ITAT directed Soliya to pay ₹15,000 to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Surat Bench, within two weeks as a condition for the appeal’s restoration.

The Tribunal also issued a cautionary note, urging the assessee to exercise greater vigilance and cooperate fully during the appellate process. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates