AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] order dated 15.10.2025 arising out of the Assessment Order dated 16.03.2024 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as under:
“ 1. Because the action of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is being challenged on facts & law for dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, despite there being sufficient causes with the assessee for not filing the appeal in time as per section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which obstructed his action to file the appeal within the time limit. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing
2.Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of the assessment proceedings at an addition of Rs 2,77,54,224/- is being challenged on facts and law
3.Being action is being challenged on facts and law for not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard before AO. The assessment order being passed is in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the appellant to present the case.
4.Because action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2,77,54,224/-as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C when the assessee has no role in the said bogus transaction and has been dragged into the devious schemes of his relative, Sh. Krishan Pal against his will.
5.For any consequential relief and/or legal claim arising out of this appeal and for any addition, deletion, amendment and modification in the grounds of appeal before the disposal of the same in the interest of substantial justice to the assessee.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by not condoning the delay of 388 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal also noted that the assessee had not requested for condonation of the delay and has not given any reason for explanation of the delay. The Ld. AR before us, submitted the explanation for the reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which is reproduced as under:
“1.Notice u/s 148 was issued on dt. 04.04.2022 after recording the reason and passing the order u/s 148A (d) of the I.T Act, 1961 on 04.04.2022. AO passed ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dt. 16.03.2024. Assessee could not file the reply during assessment proceedings as assessee has not checked the portal, so he was not aware of any proceedings pending against him.
2.Aggrieved with the order of AO, Assessee filed the appeal before Id CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 15.10.2025 Pg. 1 Para 2 considered that appeal should have been filed within 30 days from the date of passing of order dt. 16.03.2024 i.e. latest by 15.04.2024. As assessee has filed the appeal on 08.05.2025. Thus, there was a delay of 388 days.
3.In this regard, it is submitted that assessee has filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on dt. 08.05.2025 mentioning the receipt of order of AO on dt. 28.04.2025. The reason for mentioning the date of receipt of order on dt. 28.04.2025 is that assessee has last filed his ITR u/s 139(1) for the AY 2018-19 on dt. 26.07.2018. After that assessee has not filed any return. Assessee is non filer of return after AY 2018-19 as his income was below taxable limits. Thus, due to said reason, assessee has not checked the portal during assessment proceedings nor after passing the AO order u/s 147 r.w.s 144.
4.When assessee received the notice u/s 148A(b) for the AY 2019-20, After that he checked the portal & found that assessment for the AY 2018-19 has been completed & demand is outstanding for that year. The day when assessee checked the portal i.e. 25.04.2025, assessee has mentioned the receipt of AO Order.
5.In view of above pleading, the humble prayer is that the aforesaid delay is unintentional and inadvertent and there is sufficient cause wherein the humble pleadings is for condoning the delay attributable to the aforesaid reasons as the assessee would go to suffer very badly. Thus, humble prayer is made to remand the matter back to AO.”
In view of the above facts, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), may kindly be condoned and the appeal heard on merits.
The Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have carefully perused the reasons as reproduced above and we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, condone the delay of 388 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and take up the appeal for hearing.
The assessment in this case was completed u/s 144 of the Act, as the assessee failed to appear during the course of assessment proceedings despite number of opportunities given by the AO as noted in para no. 2 of the assessment order. The AO had information that assessee had entered into significant transactions as bogus purchase with Shri Krishan Pal Proprietor M/s Om Sai Enterprises amounting to Rs. 2,77,54,224/- during the F.Y.- 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19 and had issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 04.04.202. The AO further noted that the assessee had filed its original return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 3,22,850/- but did not file his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 04.04.2022. Further, according to the AO, the assessee did not comply during the course of assessment proceedings and in absence of any explanation, the AO disallowed the said expenditure of Rs. 2,7,54,224/- and added it u/s 69C of the Act.
As noted above, the assessee did not appear before the assessment proceedings and the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to explain its case. The issue involved in this case requires factual verification. Therefore, both the orders of the AO as well as CIT(A) are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.
The Assessee is directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings, and will be at liberty to submit any details/ evidence in support of its appeal / claim (s).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.