AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned the Commissioner of Income-Tax – NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 08.12.2025 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) arising from the assessment order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.
There is a 175 days delay in filing the appeal. Having perused the condonation petition and the affidavit, we find that the reason for delay in filing the appeal is lack of awareness and procedural delays and also assessee is an agriculturist with limited knowledge of tax procedures. We, therefore, consider that the assessee has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act by declaring total income of Rs. 4,04,090/- and claimed exemption of Rs.3,75,11,944/-. Thereafter, information has been received under head “High Risk CRU/VRU” formulated by the CBDT through ITBA insight Portal. As per the specific information, the assessee has received the interest amounting to Rs. 3,75,11,944/- from state government during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2020-21. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, and in view of non-compliance of the assessee during assessment proceedings, the assessment was finalized after making addition of Rs.1,87,55,972/- of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of section 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee before the Tribunal with the following grounds :
1.“That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal, despite the appellant having shown sufficient cause within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that acceptance of explanation should be the rule and refusal an exception, and has thus defeated the cause of substantial justice.
3.That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits is bad in law, and therefore deserves to be set aside, and the matter be restored to the file of the L.d. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
4.The That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding compulsory taxation of interest received on enhanced compensation for that acquisition of land, ignoring the settled legal position such interest is in the nature of compensation partakes the itself and chargeable to tax.
5.That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground(S) of appeal at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee could not comply with the notices by the CIT(A) which resulted in the CIT(A) passing an ex parte order. The learned AR prayed for remanding the case to the file of the CIT(A).
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any objection.
Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee could not file any submissions before the CIT(A) which led to passing an ex-parte order. We are however of the opinion that the CIT(A) has not examined the entire conspectus of the case and passed the order without following the due provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. In view of the same, we condone the delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A), relying on the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan V M Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123. We also direct in the interest of justice and balance of convenience, that the impugned order be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for examining the issues and evidences afresh. We therefore, direct the ld. CIT(A) to give reasonable opportunities to the assessee and examine and adjudicate on the impugned issues afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all documents/evidence as and when required by the ld. CIT(A) for examination. Needless to add that in the event the assessee fails to avail the three effective opportunities provided, the CIT(A) would be free to take adverse view, if any. In view of the same, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 258/DEL/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.