Lajpat Rai Aneja vs Income Tax Officer

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A), in short] both dated 20.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act dt. 10.12.2018 and penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 18.06.2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

It is observed that both the appeals being filed delayed before the Ld. CIT(A) therefore the same were dismissed as not maintainable.

Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submits that both the orders were not served upon the assessee, and therefore, in terms of the application filed on 17.09.2019, a request was made for supply of the certified copies of the order which was supplied to the assessee on 18.09.2019. Upon receipt of the certified copies of the orders, assessee filed the appeals against the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 dated 10.12.2018 and penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 18.06.2019 on 02.10.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A). It was the submissions of the assessee that since appeals were filed well within stipulated time period upon receipt of the certified copies of orders and therefore, there was no delay which fact has not been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeals of the assessee by holding that the appeals were filed delayed. Therefore, it is requested that delay be condoned and since the assessment order of the AO is also passed ex-parte, therefore in the interest of justice, matter can be set aside to the file of the AO.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently objected to the request of the assessee and submits that since the assessee has filed to give any reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeals, therefore, delay should not be condoned and both the appeals be dismissed.

Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessment order u/s 144/147 was passed on 10.12.2019, however, the said order was not received by the assessee as the assessment proceedings were concluded on duplicate PAN No. ABMPR5498L whereas the assessee was regular filing the return of income on other PAN i.e. AEFPA93397B, therefore, a request was made on 17.09.219 to supply the certified copies of the orders. After receiving the copies on 18.09.2019, appeal was filed on 02.10.2019 against the order passed u/s 144/147 and on 06.10.2019 against the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) on 18.06.2019. On careful consideration of the facts, in our opinion, there was a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further observed that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act as no compliance was made by the assessee before the AO. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. AO with direction to pass the order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee of being heard. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No.2770/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

With respect to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.2771/Del/2026 against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since, we have already set aside the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act wherein the present penalty proceedings were initiated, therefore, the penalty order is hereby deleted. However, the AO is at liberty to reinitiate the penalty proceedings, if the circumstances suggest so in set aside proceedings. With these observations, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the final result, ITA 2770/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 2771/Del/2026 is allowed.