Kumar Ashutosh vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(5)

PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A), in short], dated 27.11.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083055614(1)), which has arisen from the assessment order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the 1961 Act (DIN: ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1071987526(1)).

The case of the assessee was reopened by the Revenue by invoking provisions of section 147 of the Act on the ground that there is an income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment.. The department was in a possession of the information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.96,27,000/- in his bank account. The assessee has filed income-tax return ,declaring total income of Rs. 2,57,690/-. Thus, there was an information that income amounting to Rs. 96,27,000/- which was chargeable to tncome-tax has escaped assessment. The AO issued notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2024 to the assessee, as well notices u/s 142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued by the AO to the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings , but there was no response of the assessee. The assessee did not file return in response to notice issued by the AO u/s 148 of the 1961 Act. The AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the Andhra Bank, and obtained bank statement of the assessee directly from the bank. Further SCN(s) were issued by the AO to the assessee , but there was no response by the assessee, which led AO to make an ex-parte best judgment assessment , wherein the AO made addition to the tune of Rs. 96,27,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the 1961 Act, with respect to the cash deposited by the assessee in his Andhra Bank A/c No. 277911100000113 , during the year under consideration, vide assessment order dated 08.01.2025 passed u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with the ld. CIT(A) who observed that the there is a delay of 180 days by the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) issued two notice to the assessee, but the same was not replied by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee being un-admitted on account of delay in filing the appeal belatedly by the assessee by 180 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the Act , as the assessee has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause u/s 249(3) of the Act for filing the appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A). While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has stated that reasons for delay in filing the appeal are enclosed, but no such letter explaining delay was in-fact enclosed.

Still aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with the ITAT. None appeared on behalf of the assesse before the Tribunal , when this appeal was called for hearing before the Division Bench. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the contentions of ld. DR and perused the material on record. The brief facts are enumerated in preceding para’s of this order, and are not repeated. We have observed that the assessee filed its appeal belatedly with ld. CIT(A) by 180 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the 1961 Act. We have observed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal un-admitted by not condoning the aforesaid delay as sufficient cause u/s 249(3) was not shown by the assessee . We have observed that the ld. CIT(A) had observed that the assessee stated in its appeal memo that the reasons for delay are enclosed , but no such reasons were infact enclosed. We have observed that vide ground no. 1 filed with ITAT, the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay u/s 249(2) of the Act, without adjudicating the issues on merits. In the statement of fact filed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has stated that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and came to his knowledge only after demand was uploaded on the IT portal. Thus, there was delay in filing appeal with the CIT(A). It is further stated that the assessee is neither educationally qualified nor technically qualified . The assessee has also stated that notices issued by the AO during reassessment proceedings were not received. The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the aforesaid delay, and instead dismissed the appeal of the asseessee as the same was filed beyond the time stipulated u/s 249(2) of the Act and the assessee could not show sufficient cause u/s 249(3) as the letter explaining reasons for belated appeal was not enclosed. Based on material on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly with the ld. CIT(A) as the assessee did not receive the assessment order passed by the AO, and it is only when the demand is uploaded on the IT portal, the assesse came to know about the assessment order passed by the AO. Section 282 of the 1961 Act read with Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 stipulates manner of serving of notices , orders etc by Revenue. We have also observed that the first notice was issued by ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings on 19.09.2025 while second notice was issued on 14.10.2025, and the appeal was dismissed on 27.11.2025. Principles of natural justice and fair hearing are breached. Thus, we condone the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal by the assessee belatedly with ld. CIT(A) , and restored the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issue arising in the appeal. It is further directed that the assessee will cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) during set aside proceedings, and submit all necessary documents and evidences in support of his contentions. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and pass an order on merits in accordance with law as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act, 1961 (now section 359(4) of the Income Tax Act, 2025). Thus , the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.