AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]:
The above-captioned two appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.01.2026, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A), NFAC’) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), arising out of the following respective assessment orders:
(ITA No.3621/Del/2026) Assessment Year 2021-22 : Assessment order dated 15.12.2022 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of Income Tax Act, 1961.
(ITA No.3622/Del/2026) Assessment Year 2021-22 : Penalty order dated 23.06.2023 passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department u/s 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Since the above captioned two appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
At the outset, ld. Counsel stated that there was a delay of 780 days in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the explanation of the assessee and did not condone the delay and passed the order considering the assessee’s appeal as not maintainable.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 3621/Del/2026 to 3622/Del/2026 are identical mutatis mutandis, except for the change in figures. The grounds read as under:
1.“Ground No. 1: That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the ground of limitation, without properly appreciating the genuine and bona fide reasons for delay in filing the appeal.
2.Ground No. 2: That the learned CIT(A) failed to exercise judicial discretion judiciously in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, ignoring the fact that the Appellant was fully dependent on his counsel, who does not narrated him about the order and the order under consideration has come in his knowledge only when his bank account was attached as well as the additions made were against the natural law and justice due to which, after aware of this order, the assessee had moved an application u/s 154 with his Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. However, he (the AO) has allowed partly this application of 154, so for remaining addition he filed an appeal with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). So sir, it is clear that, technically, the service of the order under consideration may be deemed only when the order u/s 154 had been served to him which was served to the assessee on 19/02/2025 and after that the appeal has been filed within the statutory time allowed.
3.Ground No. 3: That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and against the facts of the case for dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the appeal had been filed with the delay of 780 days counted from the date of assessment order u/s 143 of the I.T. Act, while he has not considered the main plea of the assessee that the order was not physically served and when the issue of this order has been come in the knowledge of the assessee then he has gone through in depth of this order and filed an application u/s 154 with bonafide belief that all the additions made therein will be quashed through the order u/s 154 of the Act. For evidence copy of application u/s 154, Order u/s 154 and Affidavit of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing of appeal are being enclosed for your kind consideration.
4.Ground No. 4: That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal.”
Per contra, ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO and ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have considered the explanation of the assessee that the assessee is fully dependent on his counsel who did not inform about the order of the AO which only came to his knowledge when the bank account of the assessee was attached. We find the reasons having sufficient cause and reasonable and condone the delay. Following the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court's in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) mandating to render substantial justice on merits rather than scuttling a case on technical or procedural grounds like time-bars, we set aside the appeal to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee to present its case. Likewise, the assessee is directed to avail the opportunities and furnish evidences/documents as required by the CIT(A).
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.