AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18.
Registry has pointed out a delay of 366 days in filing of this appeal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit alongwith an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as under :-
5.During his tenure, Mr. Singhania oversaw all tax proceedings. He registered his personal email address ([email protected]) as the primary contact on the Income Tax portal. By doing so, he successfully intercepted all critical departmental communications and kept the Assessee's management completely in the dark regarding the status of several notices. Consequently, the notices issued during the assessment and first appeal proceedings were delivered to Mr. Singhania's email ID leading to the ex-parte assessment order and dismissal of appeal. These portal screenshots are annexed as Annexure-2.
6.The Assessee was thus deprived of the principles of natural justice on account of the actions of an individual who forged documents to pose as a CA and actively concealed statutory proceedings to cover up his financial misappropriation. Therefore, the Assessee has not been heard on merits before any authority to date, making the admission of this appeal and the condonation of delay vital to the interest of justice.
7.The delay in filing the accompanying appeal before the Tribunal is entirely unintentional. It occurred because the email containing the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2025 unfortunately landed in the spam folder of the Director's email ID and went unnoticed. This inadvertent oversight was further compounded by the fact that the Assessee's management was occupied with in considerable litigation before various forums arising directly from the actions of the erstwhile financial consultant against whom FIR has been lodged by the Assessee. A summary of these litigations is enclosed as Annexure-03.
8.The Assessee has not gained or not sought to gain from filing of a belated appeal, a refusal to condone the delay would cause irreparable hardship.
9.It is only upon receipt of Penalty Order u/s 270A dated 03.03.2026, enclosed herewith as Annexure-04 to this application that the Assessee was made aware of the pending action and took prompt action to engage counsel, collate documents and file the appeal.
Prayer
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
a. Condone the delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal;
b. Admit the appeal and direct its disposal on merits;
c. Pass any such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.
After going through the issue mentioned in the application we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld. DR argued that matter may be decided on merit. The delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and admitted for adjudication.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under :-
1.That the CIT(A)/NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on account of a delay in filing appeal without granting the Appellant an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay.
2.That the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law and on facts by failing to decide the appeal on its merits, thereby denying the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard
3.That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 2,17,11,596/-under Section 68 of the Act, treating the increase in share capital and borrowings as "unexplained cash credits"
4.The CIT(A) erred in confirming the Addition of Rs. 82,55,124/-made by the AO by arbitrarily estimating the income of the Appellant @8% of the total turnover of Rs.13,55,89,050/-.
5.The CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty proceedings u/s.270A, 271AAC, 271B, and 272 A(1)(d) of the Act, without appreciating that the defaults were induced by the criminal breach of trust by the Appellant’s consultant.
At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the order passed by the AO and appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are exparte order. Thus, the assessee did not get any occasion to file details/ papers relevant for bring on record material facts in the case and made a prayer to remand this case back to the file of the AO.
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the authorities below in their respective orders and we have also considered the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel of the assesse.
During proceedings before us we find that both orders passed by the AO and later on the appellate exparte order by the Ld. CIT(A) so keeping in view of natural justice that assessee should get an opportunity to bring on record relevant papers and documents, we are inclined to remand this case back to the file of the AO. Thus, the case is remanded back to the file of the AO for denovo order. The assessee is directed to file all the relevant necessary papers and documents/ details before the AO at the earliest so that the Revenue could pass order in time.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.