Anish Ahmad vs Income Tax Officer

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 19/09/2025for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order u/s 144 read with Section 14B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 30/04/2021 which has been challenged by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 629 days. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19/09/2025 dismissed the Appeal on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 19/09/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal without condoning the delay in latches in filing the first appeal though there was sufficient causes to condone the delay. The Ld. Assessee's Representative also submitted that the order impugned is against principals of natural justice.

The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 629 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s u/s 144 read with Section 14B of the Act dated 30/04/2021, the Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 629 days. The Assessee in his application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. CIT(A) contended that the Assessee got his PAN registered through a Chartered Accountant and at that point of time the said CA mentioned his e-mail id in the Portal and the A.O. made all correspondence to the mail id of the Ld. CIT(A) who has not informed the Assessee and the Assessee was unaware of the proceedings before the A.O. and Assessee came to know only when the demand notice received through Speed Post and immediately filed the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, prayed for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.

It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 629 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by imposing the cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall be deposited by the Assessee in Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.