Vikram Singh Yadav ORDER
Vijay Pal Rao, Member (J)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.01.2019 of ld. CIT(A), Jaipur for the assessment order 2010-11. Due to prevailing COVID-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeal is concluded through video conference.
2. There is delay of 349 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee.
3. We have heard the ld. AR as well as the ld. DR on condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) after the case was transferred from the ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur to ld. CIT(A), Ajmer was not received by the assessee due to the reason that the assessee has sold its factory premises in the year 2018 and consequently the address of the assessee was changed to Flat No. 102 SunShin Palm, Sikar Road, Jaipur. The ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee in the return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 as well as for the assessment year 2019-20 has given a new address of the assessee therefore, change of the address was duly intimated to the Department when the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 and for the assessment year 2019-20. He has also pointed out that the assessee also intimated about the change of address to the ROC and other Government Departments and necessary changes were made in this respect. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that due to change of address of the assessee neither notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer after the case was transferred from the ld. CITI(A), Jaipur to ld. CIT(A), Ajmer nor the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was received by the assessee as these were sent to the old address of the assessee. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that only when the assessee received the penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act it came to know about the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and immediately filed the present appeal. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but due to bonafide reason of not receiving the impugned order by the assessee prior to the date when the penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act received by the assessee. He has further pointed out that the penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also passed by the AO ex-part and the service of the said order dated 12.03.2020 was affected through departmental process server. Once, change of address was duly intimated to the AO then it was the duty of the AO to communicate the same to the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR has pleaded that when the assessee has explained a reasonable and bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal then the same may be condoned so as to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following order as under:-
I. Vijay Vishan Meghani vs. DCIT MANU/MH/2333/2017 : (2017) 398 ITR 250.
II. Just Steel vs. DCIT (2012) 74 DTR (MA) 86.
III. Improvement Trust vs. Ujagar Singh (SC) Civil Appeal Nos. 2395 of 2008 dated 26.06.2010.
The ld. AR has also referred to number of other decisions on this point that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. He has contended that time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. The term "Sufficient cause" should be understood in its proper spirit, philosophy and purpose so that substantial justice should be preferred then the technical considerations. Accordingly........