AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the Appellant/assessee is against order dated 22.06.2026 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 10.09.2021 of Ld. Assessing Officer/ NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the assessment year, the assessee had made total cash deposit of Rs. 1,41,92,700/- in his bank account. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. After obtaining prior approval of Joint CIT notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. After considering response of assessee, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessment at Rs. NIL. Once again proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated. After prior approval of PCIT, Karnal by letter dated 18.02.2020, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.02.2020 was issued. The Assessee failed to reply or furnish ITR. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 10.09.2021 made addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and income from undisclosed source claim of Rs. 74,40,500/-.
Against order dated 10.09.2021 of ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) along with application for condonation of delay of 891 days in filing appeal. Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.06.2026 dismiss the application for condonation of delay of 891 days in filing appeal and appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:
“1.That on fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act as no approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was taken from the Hon'ble PCIT before issuing the notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact.
2.The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act as notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is time-barred as the appellant's assessment has already been completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on dated 29.12.2016. The appellant had fully and truly disclosed all the material facts during its assessment proceedings and the re-opening of the assessment had been done only on the basis of audit objections. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact.
3.The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act as notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not served to the appellant and even notice issued u/s 148 of Income Tax Act was not signed by the Ld. AO. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering this fact..
4.The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act without complying with the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed.
5.The Ld. AO erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income Tax Act without considering the submission made by the appellant. Hence all the proceedings are bad in law and need to be quashed.
6.The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal by misapplying judicial precedents (P.K. Ramachandran and Abzony Safety Glass) by failing to appreciate the distinction between a case where no evidence is provided and a case where cogent evidence (a sworn affidavit) is provided but ignored. Hence order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and need to be quashed.
7.The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in refusing to condone the delay in the filing of appeal by relying on Pundlik Jalam Patil and Ram Mohan Kabra, which are factually distinguishable as they involve government entities, and by introducing irrelevant considerations of "motives" unsupported by any material on record. Hence order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) need to be quashed.
8.The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as not admitted by refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal as the delay was due to non-service of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessment order in physical form upon the appellant and he not being aware of the e-proceedings, so the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and need to be quashed.
9.The interest charged u/s 234A and 234B of Income Tax Act is bad in law and need to be quashed.
10.That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other that the assessee during the course of appeal hearing or before crave/ leave/ amend/raise any additional ground of appeal.”
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that the appellant/assessee is about 61 years and studied up to 5th Class. The assessee agriculturists had sold immovable property. The assessee had not received any notice through registered post or other post. The assessee could not submit relevant document before Ld. AO. The matter may be restored to the file of ld. AO.
Ld. Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.06.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 891 days in filing appeal and appeal. Ld. AO had passed ex parte assessment order, since the assessee failed to reply notices. The appellant has prayed for restoration of matter to the file of Ld. AO.
In view of the above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned orders dated 22.06.2026 of ld. CIT(A) and dated 10.09.2021 of Ld. AO is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.