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), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] order dated 09.09.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 12.03.2024 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23.
In this case, an adjournment petition was filed which was rejected. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 91 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had stated the following reasons for the delay:
“The assessee was not served any notice during the course of the scrutiny nor the order. Now when the show cause notice of penalty was serviced to him then he came to know about the assessment. You are thereby requested to condone the delay and accept the appeal.”
The above reasons were not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and he dismissed the appeal for the delay in filing of the appeal. Further, the assessment was also completed u/s 144 of the Act in this case.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, on the following grounds of appeal:
“ 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)/NFAC] erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without appreciating that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to non-service of assessment order and demand notice to the assessee.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that notices and orders were served at the e-mail address “ [email protected]” without verifying whether the said e-mail address was actually used or controlled by the assessee or whether the assessee had received any such communications.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee came to know about the assessment proceedings only upon receipt of penalty show cause notice, and immediately, thereafter, the appeal was filed without any undue delay, constituting a reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation under section 249(3) of the Act.
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits despite being duty-bound to adopt a liberal approach while considering condonation of delay, especially when substantial justice was at stake and the assessment was completed ex-parte.
5.That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in passing the ex-parte assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax act, 1961 without granting effective opportunity of being heard and without ensuring proper service of statutory notices as required under law.
6.That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire commission expenditure of Rs. 4,88,41,540/- without any basis, verification, or inquiry, and in assessing total income at Rs. 4,91,25,970/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,84,430/- which is highly excessive, arbitrary, and unjustified.
7.That the Ld. Assessing officer failed to appreciate that the commission expenditure claimed was genuine, incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose, dully supported by agreements and confirmations, which could not be produced earlier due to non-service of notices.
8.That both the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have failed to comply with the principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the entire assessment and appellate proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed.
9.That the appellant craves leave toa dd, alter, modify, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
On the other hand, the Ld. CIT(DR) supported the orders of the authorities below and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the assessment order was passed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee has been carefully perused. In the ground, the assessee submits that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to non-service of assessment order and demand notice to the assessee. Further, it is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in holding that notices and orders were served at the e-mail address “ [email protected]” without verifying whether the said e-mail address was actually used or controlled by the assessee or whether the assessee had received any such communications. Further, it is submitted that the assessee came to know about the assessment proceedings only upon receipt of penalty show cause notice, and immediately, thereafter, the appeal was filed without any undue delay, constituting a reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation under section 249(3) of the Act.
The above grounds of the appeal have been carefully perused by us. The explanation of the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), upon careful consideration by us has been found to be reasonable and justified. We, therefore, condone the delay of 91 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
As noted above, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act in this case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order to allow one more opportunity to the assessee, we deem it fit to set aside the respective order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment order and restore the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee upon service of notice from the AO shall respond to the same, without fail.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.