Considering the delay caused due to notices being sent to the wrong email ID, ITAT condoned and remanded the matter to CIT(A)

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 288-day delay due to the notices being sent to the wrong email ID. The Tribunal remanded the Stock undervaluation matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication. Assessee, Hindustan Marble & Granite involved in the business of trading Marble, Granite, and other natural stones. A search and seizure was conducted on 04.03.2020 at the premises of Hindustan Marble & Granite under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed its income tax return declaring Rs.5,56,59,610 as total income on 13.01.2021. Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here The assessing officer issued notices calling for various details and in response, the assessee admitted Rs. 2,75,46,363 on account of the excess value of the stock. The assessing officer completed the assessment determining a total income of Rs.5,56,59,610 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Regrettably, the appeal was filed with a delay of 228 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and held that the assessee had failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here The assessee appealed before the ITAT, Bangalore against the CIT(A) order. The assessee’s counsel submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The counsel further submitted that the notices were sent to his former employee’s email, not his email. Due to the wrong email, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings. On the other hand, the revenue supported the CIT(A) order and submitted that the assessee was given as many opportunities to file the reasons by issuing various notices under section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The revenue argued that the assessee’s reason was very general and unverifiable. Thus, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal. Get a Copy of Income Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here The two-member bench comprising Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that the delay in filing the appeal was explained by the assessee was reasonable. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court case of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., where the court laid down six principles. The tribunal emphasized that the cause of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. Therefore, the tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the issues back to the file of CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.