AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 31.08.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10384791 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19.
From the perusal of the appellate order, it is found that ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as the appeal was filed delay by 155 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The reasons given in delay condonation petition was that due to medical treatment of Managing partner, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit before the Ld. CIT(A) and the same was got delayed by 155 days. Since there was bonafide and sufficient cause for delay, therefore, it was prayed before the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits which request was rejected by ld. CIT(A) as no supporting evidences were filed to substantiate the reason stated for delay.
Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for delay in filing the appeal by 155 days. The reason given was that the managing partner was not well and undergone medical treatment. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) is hereby, condoned. It is further observed that no compliance was made by the assessee before the AO also, therefore, in the larger interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to the assessee and the matter is remanded to the file of AO with direction to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in proceedings before the AO. With these directions, Grounds of appeal 2 to 2.3 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Since we have remanded the matter to the file of CIT(A), thus other grounds of appeal taken on the merits become academic and thus not adjudicated.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.