AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 11.03.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT (A)/NFAC”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and has not admitted the appeal for adjudication and has dismissed as the same as not maintainable.
The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the assessee is an individual, has not filed return of income for AY 2018-19 and the department has got the following information for the relevant assessment year:
Interest income: It is seen that assessee has received interest income amounting to Rs. 71,53,899/- in total from on investment of against which TDS was deducted which needs to be verified.
Time Deposit: As per the information available with department assessee has entered in to various Time deposit transactions during the financial year 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- which needs to be verified.
The case of the assessee was reopened after initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act while issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022 with the prior approval of PCIT, Faridabad, order u/s 148(d) of the Act was passed on 27.03.2022. In response to the notice assessee has not filed return of income within 30 days of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 28.06.2022, 17.11.2022 and 03.11.2023. Various opportunities as mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order were given to the assessee but assessee has not filed any response. Since no response was received from the assessee, hence the Assessing Officer proceeded to conduct of assessment u/s 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has made the following two additions as find mentioned in para 4.5 onwards extracted below as under:
'4.5 Conclusion drawn:
4.5.1 Interest income taxed as Income from Other Sources:
9.1As per ITS details, assessee has received interest of Rs.71,53,899/- from Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank and Land Acquisition Office on which TDS was deducted under 194A. Since Assessee has not filed return of income and not complied with the notices issued U/s142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and also with the show cause issued, the interest income remained to be taxed. Thereafter information was called for from third parties by issue of notices under section 133(6) of IT act. Third Party has not responded till date. Non responded parties are referred for physical verification through verification units. Hence, the interest income of Rs 71,53,899/- is taxed as income from other sources under section 56 of IT act 1961 for the Assessment year 2018-19. The credit of TDS deducted is allowed to assessee against regular taxes raised. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for under reporting of income consequence to misreporting of income.
(Addition: Rs. 71,53,899/-)
4.5.4Time Deposit: Also, assessee has invested in Time deposit for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- with Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank during year under consideration. Assessee failed to produce documentary proof or evidences with respect to source of fund. Therefore, entire investment amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- is to be added back to the income of assessee under section 115BBE by virtue of provision of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by treating it as unexplained investment. Further, Penalty proceedings u/s 271(AAC)1 of the Act is also initiated in respect of above addition.
(Addition: Rs: 2,00,00,000/-)
SI No Description Amount (in INR) 1 Income as per Return of Income filed NIL 2 Income as computed u/s143(1)(a) - 3 Variation in respect of issue of: (i) income from other sources : 71,53,899/- (ii) Deemed income under section 69A: 2,00,00,000/- 2,71,53,899/- 4 Total Income-Loss determined as per the above proposal 2,71,53,899/- 6.Assessed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act at Rs. Computation of Income and demand notice u/s156 of the Act is generated and attached. Penalty proceedings u/s 272(A)(1)(d) of the Act are separately initiated for failure to comply with the statutory notices issued under section 142(1) from time to time. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(AAC)1 of the Act is also initiated separately. Penalty proceedings under section 270A of IT act is also imitated for underreporting of income which is consequences of misreporting of income."
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Id. CIT(A) where the appeal was delayed by 117 days while refusing to condone the delay, the Id. CIT(A) has made the following observations and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The relevant portion as contained in para 5.21 to para 6 is extracted below as under:
'5.21 In the present case, there is a delay of approximately 117 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to acknowledge this delay in Form No. 35, nor has the appellant provided any sufficient evidence or valid reasoning to justify the delay. The appellant claims that the order was received on 07.08.2023, yet the order itself was passed on 24.03.2023. Therefore, the appellant has not explained, nor substantiated, the reason for the delayed receipt of the order. It is important to note that the order in the faceless regime is served to the appellant via email, and hence it may not be a valid reason for a delayed receipt of the order. In the absence of any evidence to support the claim of late receipt of the order on 07.08.2023, this assertion cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is concluded that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 117 days, and no valid explanation for such delay has been provided.
5.22.The above facts clearly indicate that the appellant has failed to provide any reason for the delay in filing the appeal, which was submitted beyond the prescribed time limit.
5.23To summarize, it is a well-established legal principle that the condonation of delay in filing an appeal is not a mere formality. Delay can only be condoned when sufficient cause for such delay is demonstrated. In the present case, the appellant has failed to substantiate any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order lacks merit for condonation, rendering the appeal inadmissible and non-maintainable as it was filed beyond the stipulated time period without sufficient cause. Accordingly, there is no basis to interfere with the order passed by the A.O., and I am not inclined to adjudicate the case on its merits. As a result, the appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.
5.24Based on the foregoing, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed, and the addition made by the AO is upheld.
6.0As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby Dismissed.”
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds of appeal:
'1. That on the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissed the appeal for delay in filling the appeal for 117 days and failed to consider the fact that the appeal before the CIT (A) was filed on 19/08/2023 on the basis of the certified copy dated 11/08/2023 reflected on the face of the assessment order available before the CIT(A), accordingly the assessee-appellant prays for relief as per law in this matter.
2.That on the facts, and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal due to delay in filling the appeal and failed to consider the written submission including the supporting documents filed before him on various dates, thus the assessee appellant prays that the order of the CIT (A) may kindly be set aside.
3.That the above appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds and/or amend or withdraw any of the aforesaid Grounds before or at the time of hearing of appeal."
We have noticed that the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed beyond 193 days of the limitation and the assessee has made an application for seeking condonation of delay and contents of the same are extracted below as under:
'1. That I am a common man living in a village and has no knowledge regarding the tax laws. As for the A.Y.2018-19, I had received interest on enhanced compensation as per the Court Order u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compulsory acquisition of my agricultural land which is tax free and interest income of Rs.16,439/, hence my taxable income was less than the maximum exemption limit, accordingly no return of income was filed by me.
2.That for the AY.2018-19 income escaped proceeding u/s.147 was initiated by the ITO, Ward 3(1), Gurgaon (JAO) and all the notices including the preliminary jurisdictional notice u/s.148 was not served upon the assessee as all the notices are issued by the JAO by E-Proceeding Portal without any real time alert in my Mobile No:9278107222, as a result of which no information was available regarding the assessment proceedings, hence not attained by me.
3.That the demand raised against the assessment order dated 24/03/2023 was came to my knowledge was came to my knowledge during August-2023 and applied for certified copy of the assessment order before the JAO on 07/08/2023 and the certified copy was received by me on 11/08/2023.
4.That on the basis of the certified copy of the order dated 11/08/2023, appeal was filed before the CIT (A) on 19/08/2023, however the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay in filling the appeal for 117 days without considering the written submission and documentary evidences filed before him.
5.That the CIT (A) used an unrelated Email Id: [email protected] for transmitting the notices and not used the Email id:[email protected], accordingly it can be held that the appeal order was also transmitted to the unrelated Email id: [email protected] used for transmitting the notices, accordingly the CIT (A), dated 11/03/2025 order was not in my knowledge.
6.That during Nov-2025, I met with CA Sudhir Yadav who had filed written submission and supporting annexures before the CIT (A) and requested him to check the status of the CIT (A) order.
7.That the CA Sudhir Yadav was busy for filling the time bound Tax Audit Report and the Return of Income for the AY.2025-26 and could not check the status of the CIT (A) order.
8.That during the first week of December-2025, on verification of the status of the CIT (A) order, it was observed that the CIT(A) vide order dated 11/03/2025 dismissed the appeal and he advised me to file appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (A).
9.That the CA Sudhir Yadav also advised me to contact with CA MR Sahu for filling the appeal before the Tribunal and as per the advise of CA MR Sahu appeal fee of Rs.10,000/-was deposited on 04/12/2025.
10.That considering the date of the CIT (A) order, dated 11/03/2025, the appeal before the Tribunal was supposed to be filed within 60 days that is on or before 10/05/2025 and the appeal is now filed causing delay of 210 days (Approx). which may kindly be accepted.
11.That the circumstances stated above were beyond the control of the appellant and, therefore, there was no mala fide intention behind not filing the appeal within the prescribed time, accordingly It is requested to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits and validity of the assessment order legally. An application and affidavit in this connection will also to be filed before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal."
We have heard the Id. DR as no one appeared on behalf of the assessee/appellant.
The Id. AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee/appellant is very negligence and he has not responded to the notice issued by the Id. CIT(A) and even the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and therefore such a negligent assessee needs to be dealt with sternly and the reason given for seeking condonation of delay before the Tribunal for 193 days delay is not justified and appeal be dismissed.
We have noticed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST. Katiji & Ors [1987] 167 ITR
471 (SC) dated 19.02.1987, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy.
And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
The application dated 10.12.2025 and contents of the same were extracted by us in preceding paras, would show that the assessee/appellant has given explanation for delay before the Id. CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal. The basic reason for delay as explained in the said application is that the assessee is a common man living in a village and having no knowledge regarding the tax laws. He had received interest on enhanced compensation as per the Court Order u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compulsory acquisition of his
agricultural land which otherwise was tax free and it is stated that his taxable income was less than the maximum exemption limit and accordingly no return of income was filed by him. It is further stated that the demand raised against the assessment order dated 24.03.2023 came to his knowledge during August, 2023 when he applied for certified copy of the assessment order before the JAO on 07.08.2023 and certified copy was received on 11.08.2023. He has further claimed that the assessment u/s 147 was initiated by the ITO, Ward 3(1), Gurgaon (JAO) and the notices including the preliminary jurisdictional notice u/s 148 was not served upon the assessee which was allegedly issued by JAO by E-Proceeding Portal without any real time alert in his mobile no. 9278107222, as result of which no information was available regarding the assessment proceedings and for that reason he could not approach the AO as well as Id. CIT(A) and the Id. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condonation of delay which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Regarding seeking condonation of delay before the Tribunal, it is stated that the Id. CIT(A) used an unrelated e-mail id. [email protected] for sending the notices and did not use the e-mail id. [email protected] and the appeal orders was thus transmitted to the unrelated e-mail id [email protected] along with the notices issued, hence the Id. CIT(A) order dated 11.03.2025 could not come to his knowledge. In other contents of the
application, he has given sufficient explanation as to why he could not file the appeal before the Tribunal.
Nothing contrary has been brought on record by the Revenue to contradict the contents of the application and the claim made by the assessee/appellant with regard to the non-receiving of the notices of assessment u/s 147 and the proceedings conducted by the AO and passing of the impugned order by the Id. CIT(A). For these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee/appellant has succeeded in justifying for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the delay before the Id. CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal has occurred because of the facts and circumstances which were beyond his control. A litigant who lives in a village and admittedly is not aware of the intricacies of the taxation law need to be dealt with the liberally and not sternly as claimed by the Id. DR. For these while relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred (supra), we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Since, the appeal the Id. CIT(A) was decided ex-parte having been held as not maintainable as being barred by limitation, therefore the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside needs. The end of justice required that an effective opportunity needs to be given to the
assessee/appellant before raising a demand of lawful taxes against assessee. Since the assessment order was also passed u/s 144 of the Act, therefore end of justice shall be made in case the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for de-novo proceedings by affording a fresh and effective opportunity to the assessee to present his case while submitting necessary documents and making submissions in that regard.
The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the Id. Assessing Officer by submitting the necessary documents/submissions with in the period of 60 days of this order.
The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in the above terms for statistical purposes.