Orders Sent Through Email Went To Spam Folder; Cuttack ITAT Condones Delay Of 145 Days
Mariya Paliwala
25 Jun 2024 5:05 AM GMT
The Cuttack Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the delay of 145 days in filing an appeal by the assessee on the ground that the assessee mistakenly did not receive the orders sent through email, as many of these orders are going to spam folders.The bench of George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) has observed, “We are seized of many...
The Cuttack Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the delay of 145 days in filing an appeal by the assessee on the ground that the assessee mistakenly did not receive the orders sent through email, as many of these orders are going to spam folders.
The bench of George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) has observed, “We are seized of many cases where the assessee mistakenly did not receive the orders sent through email, as many of these orders are going to spam folders. In any case, there is a delay of 145 days. This being so, considering the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that the explanation is a possible explanation, and consequently, we condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal before the CIT (A).”
The appeal of the appellant/assessee was delayed by 145 days before the CIT (A). The CIT(A) has also recognized that there was confusion in regard to mentioning the dates of the order as 22.7.2022 and 22.9.2022. The reason given for the delay was that the assessee did not receive the order of the assessing officer in time.
The CIT(A) has recognized that the ITBA system shows that the order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act is dated September 27, 2022, and was served through the e-mail of the assessee.
The assessee contended that the issue is with regard to the claim of depreciation. In any case, even if the depreciation is not claimed by the assessee, the depreciation is liable to be allowed as per the statute itself, whether the assessee claims it or not. On mere technicality, on appeal before the CIT(A), substantial justice should not be denied.
The department stated that the issue may be restored to the file of the CIT (A) for adjudication on merits.
The tribunal restored the issue in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
Counsel For Appellant: P.K.Mishra
Counsel For Respondent: Charan Dass
Case Title: Tirupati Prasad Sahu Versus ITO
Case No.: ITA No.184/CTK/2024
