AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
This appeal by the assessee is against order dated 12.01.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2022 passed under section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2021-22.
Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as under:
“1.That the appellate order as passed is against law and facts of the case.
4.. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,70,21,894/- on the basis of information available from a third party without verifying that the assessee is declaring income under the percentage of completion method (PCM).
5.That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs. 2,80,88,750/- merely on the basis of information that the assessee has made time deposits (Fixed Deposits through ‘Renewal’) without looking into the facts that the companies maintaining proper books of accounts and also the fact that the time deposits are renewal of old deposits only.
2.That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in completing the appellate proceedings ex-parte in violation of Pr. of natural justice.
3.That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in both law and facts by not adjudication on the ground raised by the appellant in appeals filed before him.
6.That the appellate order as passed is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances.”
At the outset, it is seen that the appeal is time barred, having been filed with a delay of 582 days. An affidavit alongwith application for condonation of delay has been filed explaining the reasons of the inordinate delay as under:
“The assessee company M/s. ILD Millennium Pvt. Ltd. suffered major financial setback during the aftermath of Covid-19 lockdown. The financial repercussions resulted in resignation of most of the staff and non-cooperation from the directors of the company. Mr. Shahid Ali Khan (the erstwhile director handling important operation of the company) completely alienated the issues of the company in so much so that he did not even attend to any of the legal proceedings of the company and ultimately resigned from directorship on 18.11.2021 without giving any charge to the new management. After the joining of the new director Mr. Salman Akbar Jalaluddin, everything had to be reorganized. It is also critical to mention that the series of events led to be belated filing of Income Tax returns in the form of updated returns for AY 2022-23, ΑΥ 2023-24 and AY 2024-25 which were filed for the end of December 2024. In the interim, the order as passed for AY 2021-22 on 12.01.2024 under appeal also got overlooked and it was only after stream lining of the tax returns, the management could focus on the pending appeal matters.
It was only after the management could focus of the pending appeal matters, it was looking for an appropriate professional to take care of the filing of appeals and preparation thereof for the purposes of arguing the same. All these processes resulted in delay of 582 days in filing of appeal. The perusal of the above facts clearly states that there were extra ordinary circumstances in the working of the assessee company resulting in this inordinate delay.
In the circumstances, it is requested that the delay in filing in the current appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.
It has further been submitted by the Ld. AR that for identical facts and circumstances, the delay in filing of appeals for other assessment years has been condoned by co-ordinate benches. In support, Ld. AR has filed a copy of the combined order of the co-ordinate bench for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19 dated 29.10.2025, wherein the delays for more than 400 days in all the three years have been condoned.
We have perused the material placed on record. We are of the view that the delay in filing of appeal was due to genuine and reasonable cause. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay of 582 days in filing of the present appeal.
Before us, the Ld. AR, has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte as no compliance was made to the two notices issued by him for the same reasons as explained in the application for condonation of delay. He has, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of substantive justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.