AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ld. CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), all are dated 26.11.2025 for AY 2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dt. 13.02.2024, penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act dt. 30.06.2024 and penalty order u/s 270A of the Act dt. 28.06.2024.
At the outset, it is observed that all the three appeals are dismissed by ld. CIT(A) on account of delay in filing the appeals. As per the ld. CIT(A), assessee has filed to satisfy that the appellant has sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in fling the appeals so as to exercise the provided u/s 249(3) of the Act.
Before us, ld. AR for the assessee, in addition to the ground of appeal of not condoning the delay also raised legal issue wherein the validity of the reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is challenged. It is observed that since the appeals of the assessee are not admitted by ld. CIT(A) for delay of 431 days in filing the appeal against the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, delay of 330 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC of the Act and delay of 343 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act. As the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted all the three appeals of the assessee and dismissed the same in limine on limitations thus we first decide the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
Before us, it was submitted by ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal against the assessment as well as penalty order. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee has made following prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
“I, Bijender Singh hereby request your honour to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 144 for A.Y. [2018-19].
1 do not have much understanding of the tax laws and compliances due to my poor education, I was totally dependent on my accountant and had entrusted all the responsibilities related to Accounting, Audits and tax compliance, including filing of returns, responding to notices, and handling communications with the Income Tax Department, to my accountant, Deepak Kumar resident of Sidhrawali, Gurgaon and having office at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
The delay was caused solely due to the negligence and concealment by my accountant, who was responsible for all tax-related filings and had full access to the Income Tax portal and email. I remained unaware of the assessment order and resulting demand until 20* April 2025, when I came to know about the demand raised for the A.Y. 2020-21 during the assessment Proceedings of that year. This revelation made my heart sink | suffered real mental pressure and fell ill. I am still on medication for the same. Medical Certificates are being enclosed for your reference and record.
The delay was unintentional and occurred due to circumstances beyond my control. I am enclosing an affidavit detailing the facts. In the interest of justice and equity, I humbly request that the delay may kindly be condoned, and my appeal be admitted for hearing.”
It was submitted that assessee was not well and thus not been able to even participate in the assessment proceedings. Hence, it was the prayer that delay in filing all the three appeals before the ld. CIT(A) be condoned and the legal issue raised be decided.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the contention of the assessee was that it was not aware of e-assessment procure is not correct. It was the submission that assessee has not made any submission before the AO. He further stated that the assessee should not be provided another opportunity as it seems that he is not serious in the matter. Hence, he opposed the condonation of delay in all the three appeals and requests for the confirmation of the orders of ld. CIT(A) in all the appeals.
We have considered the rival submissions. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is seen that the assessee has not filed return of income and it was the contention of the assessee that he was not well. Moreover, in the first appeal against the assessment order, there was a delay of 431 days and the assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeal late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down the plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put-forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must utmost consideration to such litigant. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. We condone the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the ld. CIT(A), who will decide all the three appeals of the assessee on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate before the ld. CIT(A) and is at the liberty to raise the legal grounds on the validity of the reopening of the case and can also file the additional evidences, if required, and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to call for the remand report form the AO. Therefore, Ground of appeal No. 1 of the assessee in all the three appeals, are allowed.
In the result, all three captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 27.05.2026.