AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM :
These are quantum as well as penalty appeals filed by the assessee against the impugned orders both dated 30.9.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s both the appeals in liminie on account of being time barred.
Perused the records and heard the Ld. Representatives for both the parties. It transpires from the records that the assessee filed first quantum appeal on 1.1.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The First appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, solely upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay of 1800 days in filing the appeal before him, which was occurred due to dispatching of notices at old address, while new address of assessee was mentioned in Form 35 and also updated on the Income Tax Portal login profile, as per the contention of the assessee. The assessee made the prayer for condonation of delay in dispute accordingly. It is noted that the limitation period for filing an appeal before the CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Ld. CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay in dispute and dismissed the quantum appeal.
Further the assessee filed penalty appeal on 2.1.2025 before the Ld. CIT(A) against the penalty order dated 21.3.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty appeal was dismissed due to the fact that since condonation application was not accepted in the quantum appeal by the CIT(A) and the penalty appeal too has a huge delay of 1799 days and there is no response from the assessee despite opportunities.
The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an ex-army man, who lost both legs. He also submitted that no notice was issued to the assessee on the correct Address of the assessee. The assessee had sold his house and his address was changed. The order was not served upon the assessee and the assessee filed the appeal before the First Appellate Authority after obtaining the certified copy of the order. He further submitted that the assessee has shown the sufficient cause for condoning the delay, which was not condoned by the Appellate Authority.
The Ld. DR submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee. The appeals were rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeals and should have decided the appeals on merit because the assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file within time. Thus, keeping the entire aspects of the matter we, condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) having been satisfied with the explanation so, rendered by assessee by the said authority. The orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are setting a side. Therefore, we restore back both the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing orders afresh, on merits in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the written submissions, if any. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeals. Also, assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment except for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.