AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case there is a delay of 19 days in the filing of the said appeal. The assessee has given a detailed affidavit, some portions from which may be extracted for reference: -
“……………….
2)That the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 15.10.2025 was received by the assessee on 15.10.2025 and hence the time limit to file the appeal before ITAT was due till 31.12.2025.
3)That, the appeal could not be filed within time before the Hon’ble Tribunal because the wife of the appellant was suffering from Gynecological related problem since last 4-5 months and the appellant was very disturb during that period.
4)That, due to the ill health of the wife of the appellant, the appellant could not meet his counsel for preparation/filing of appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
5)That after recovery of the health of his wife, the Counsel met his counsel to preparation/filing of appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal, therefore some delay occurred in filing of appeal.
6)The above caused a delay of approximately 20 days. This delay, caused due to the unfortunate circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee, deserves to be condoned and it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be heard on merits.”
Considering the reasons given in the said affidavit the delay is hereby condoned.
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 15.10.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, there was a delay of 31 days in the filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the said delay (para 6.1 of the impugned order) and has also decided on merits even when the assessment itself was completed in an ex parte manner. It is also seen that attempts by the assessee to present additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) could not succeed as it was not admitted for adjudication and the appeal was eventually dismissed as time barred and also on merits.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds which protest the denial of opportunity and also the impugned decision on merit.
Before us the Ld. AR argued regarding the denial of opportunity even at the level of Ld. CIT(A), where the assessee was vigilant in filing details and documents in support of his claim. The Ld. AR pleaded for an opportunity to present such documents before the authorities below so that the present case could be decided on merits.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that there would be no objection if the matter was to be remanded back.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. It is felt that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on two counts; firstly, by not condoning a relatively short delay of 31 days and thereafter also adjudicating on merits by denying the application under Rule 46A. It is felt that in light of the circumstances and facts before us the assessee deserves another chance to prove his bona fides. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order, condone the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.