AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal arises from order dated 18.08.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. It is seen that the AO has passed an ex parte order, which was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 151 days before him in spite of the fact that detailed reasons for the said delay were tendered by the assessee at first appellate stage.
To appreciate the facts the salient points from the request to condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be mentioned in brief as under: -
The assessee was not conversant with e-proceedings and was not regularly checking the portal for relevant updates or notices;
There was no professional assistance available to her at that stage to enable any worthwhile compliance of the time limits etc.;
Thereafter a tax consultant was engaged but that person also did not promptly respond to the notices etc.;
There was no malafide intention in filing a delayed appeal since there was not expected to be any gain from such delay.
The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay on the basis of findings given in para 5.3 on pages 8 & 9 of the impugned order. Suffice it to say that the responsibility cast on the assessee to comply with the time lines mentioned in the Act has been emphasized and it has been stated that the assessee cannot blame any tax consultant for default on her part. Accordingly, the appeal was not admitted for adjudication on the grounds of limitation.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the dismissal of appeal at first appellate stage, in limine. There are grounds which challenged the additions made on merit also.
Before us the Ld. AR stated that for the reasons given in the petition seeking condonation of delay and as mentioned in pages 6 to 8 of the impugned order, the assessee made substantial effort on her part to attend to the tax proceedings as soon as she was made aware of the responsibilities cast on her in this regard. It was the prayer that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment so that the assessee is able to make a presentation of facts.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a narrow and pedantic view regarding the condoning of delay. It is a trite position that adjudicating forums need to be liberal in terms of condoning delay, until and unless there are conditions or facts which persuade the said forum to be strict in condoning delay. We find that in this case the assessee did try to make a case for condoning the delay of 151 days before the Ld. CIT(A) but the same did not find favour with him. However, we are certainly persuaded otherwise and we feel that the assessee deserves a chance to present the facts on merit and also that the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The Ld. AO would give ample opportunity of being heard and the assessee would be prompt in responding to notices from his side.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.