AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year: 2012-13.
The registry has pointed out the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by 120 days. The ld. counsel of the assessee has filed an application for condonation along with an affidavit which is reproduced as under:
“1.It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is filing the present appeal against the order dated 13.10.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").
2.That the present appeal against the order passed on 13.10.2025 was required to be filed on or before 31.12.2025, however, the same is being filed on 30.04.2026 and there is a delay of a period of 120 days in filing the present appeal.
3.It is respectfully submitted that the appellant is under-matric and engaged in the welding work and does not possess the technical knowledge to operate the e-mail or access the income tax e-filing portal.
4.That the appellant had appointed CA Viney Goel in relation to representation of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and in the Form 35, the appellant had specifically requested that all the communications may be served at the email id [email protected], however, the order dated 13.10.2025 was not issued/served at the said email id. That the order was instead issued on the email id of the counsel who represented the appellant before the Ld. AO and accordingly due to presence of two counsels, miscommunication occurred and hence consequent delay.
5.Further, the appellant was also suffering from heart related complication and was unable to properly follow up with his tax counsel.
6.That it was only when the appellant got intimation about the penalty proceedings in April 2026 from the tax offices that the appellant came to know about the passing of the aforesaid order.
7.That the appellant has a good case on merits and the delay of 120 days in filing the present appeal may please be condoned.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the delay of 120 days may please be condoned as the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation.”
The ld. DR argued that the matter of delay in filing of this appeal may be decided on merit.
We have considered the issues raised in the application for condonation of delay and keeping in view the issues raised therein, we are inclined to condone the delay.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:
“1.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio.
2.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the same was without jurisdiction as the Appellant was not provided the copy of reasons to believe 0R approval for initiating the assessment proceedings.
3.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the additions of Rs. 65,33,999/-to the income of the Appellant was made without considering the material on record and in denial of the principles of natural justice.
4.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the respondent without considering that the additions of Rs. 65,33,999/-to the income of the Appellant without considering the provisions of section 69A of the Act.
5.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 without considering that the respondent erred in making an addition of Rs. 65,33,999/- to the income of the Appellant under section 69A of the Act without considering that the cash was deposited out of sale proceeds of property owned by his wife and further out of cash withdrawals.
6.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 without considering that the respondent erred in making an addition of 6 Rs. 65,33,999/- to the income of the Appellant under section 69A of the Act without considering that the cash was deposited out of sale proceeds of agricultural land in the name of the wife of the Appellant and the Appellant was the not the owner of the cash deposited.
7.That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 03.12.2019 without 7 considering that the respondent erred in making an addition of Rs. 65,33,999/- to the income of the Appellant without considering the wife of the Appellant had invested the amount deposited in purchasing another agricultural land.
8.That the NFAC on facts and in law erred in not deleting the interest levied by the respondent under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and in not deleting the penalty levied by the respondent under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
9.The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit OR 9 substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal.
10.That all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
At the very outset, the ld. counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the bench that the impugned order in this case has been passed ex-parte. The ld. CIT(A) has also not given any finding on merits rather he has confirmed the additions made by the AO. The ld. counsel made a prayer before the bench if the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the authorities below.
We have considered a prayer of the ld. counsel and the orders passed by the authorities below. We are of this considered view that keeping in view the element of natural justice. The assessee deserves one more opportunity of being heard by the AO. Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the file of the AO for passing a de-novo order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.