AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The application for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing appeal and the appeal filed by the assessee are against the order dated 31.03.2026 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for rectification order dated 31.03.2023 u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act in arising out of assessment order dated 27.12.2019 of the Ld. Assessing officer / ACIT, Circle, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y.2016-17.
The appellant/ assessee raised following grounds:
“1.Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing order u/s 154/250 refusing to adjudicate ground on merits which was not adjudicated in quantum appeal which is wrong and bad in law.
2.The appellant contends that the ad-hoc disallowance of Other Expenditure to the extent of Rs. 3,82,95,503/- by estimating the increase in such expenditure @3% to the expenditure of last year i.e. F.Y. 2014-15 by disregarding actual expenditure incurred is wrong and bad in law. The ad-hoc disallowance made without any basis deserves to be deleted.
3.The above grounds are independent to each other. The appellant reserves the right to modify, alter, amend, or add further grounds of appeal at the time of the hearing.”
Ld. Counsel for appellant/assessee submitted that there is delay of 22 days in filing appeal due to demise of tax consultant of assessee Sh. Vivek Gupta. The explanation does not smack of malafides, therefore, delay of 22 days in filing appeal is condoned.
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in not rectifying the order dated 30.03.2023 despite original ground No. 6 remaining un-adjudicated and escaped consideration.
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the matter be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A).
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that ground No. 6 remained un-adjudicated and escaped consideration in order dated 30.03.2023 of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the application for rectification of order has been wrongly rejected vide impugned order dated 31.03.2026. The order dated 31.03.2026 of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing appeal is allowed and the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.