AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) as tabulated below for Assessment Year 2018-19.
| ITA No. | Appealed against | AO order dt. | CIT(A) dt. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7848/Del/2025 | 144 of the Act | 28.12.2022 | 13.03.2025 |
| 7849/Del/2025 | 271AAC(1)of the Act | 06.06.2023 | 06.10.2025 |
| 7850/del/2025 | 270A of the Act | 26.06.2023 | 06.10.2025 |
First we take the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 7848/Del/2025 against the order passed u/s 144 of the Act.
ITA N0. 7848/Del/2025
From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee has failed to give any valid reason for delay in filing of appeal by 171 days and thus, is not maintainable.
Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee was not aware of the order passed by the AO and when the assessee has received the notice for penalty proceedings, it was come to his knowledge about the passing of the assessment order and due to this reason the appeal was filed delayed before the ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted that due to the inadvertent error, this fact was not reported while filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), and, therefore, in absence of any proper explanation for delay in filing appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the condonation in filing the appeal delayed and dismissed the appeal. Even before us, the appeal was filed delayed by 181 days for which an affidavit is filed by the assessee wherein it is stated as under:
“1.That the appellate order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2021-22, against quantum of the addition was passed on 13.03.2025, against which the appeal was to be filed by 12.05.2025 before ITAT.
2.That the aforesaid order dt. 13.03.25 has not been received to the deponent nor has any knowledge about passing of the above order by the NFAC.
3.That the advocate who has prepared the appeal and file with NFAC on which the email ID was mentioned in the appeal, has not informed about passing of the above order.
4.That as and when, the deponent came to know about passing of the order by NFAC, he without further delay appointed an advocate for filing of le appeal accordingly, the appeal is filed herewith.
5.I further stated on oath that the order dt. 13.03.2025 was neither served upon the assessee nor assessee has knowledge about passing of such order on the day when the order was passed.”
Ld. AR thus, requested that delay in filing of appeal be condoned and further requested that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte, therefore, the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration.
On the other hand, the Ld. SR. DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee and submits that assessee is a habitual defaulter and even no application has for condonation of was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, requested that the orders of the lower authorities be confirmed.
Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is true that there was a delay of the part of the assessee in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before us. We find that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 171 days before the ld. CIT(A) and also of 181 days before us. 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 putforth 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. In the instant case assessee is retired govt. employee and was not aware of the Income Tax Proceedings carried on his case which lead to delay in filing the appeal at both the stage. 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) and also before us are condoned.
As observed above, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding the same as non-maintainable for the delay filing and no discussion was made on the merits of the issues raised. It is also observed that before the AO also, assessee has not appeared nor filed any details as called for from time to time therefore, the AO has also passed the order based on the material available on record.
Under these facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, both the order of lower authorities are hereby set aside and remand the matter to the file of the AO with the directions to pass the order denovo a fresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to appear before the AO and file all the relevant information in support of the claim.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Now coming to the other two appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 7849 & 7850/Del//2025 against the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC and 270A of the Act respectively. Since we have already set aside the order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the Act for passing the order afresh thus the penalty proceedings initiated in the said order has no legs to stand and thus the same are deleted. As observed above, the order passed u/s 144 of the Act was remanded back to the AO for passing the fresh order, therefore, the AO is at liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings a fresh, if circumstances suggested so. With these directions both the appeal of the assessee levying the penalty are allowed.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.