AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These are a batch of two appeals passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). ITA No.6749 (order dated 26.09.2025) pertains to a quantum order passed u/s 144 of the Act and ITA No.6750 (order dated 30.09.2025) pertains to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Right at the outset, the Ld. AR stated that Ld. CIT(A) had not condoned a delay of 566 days and had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. It was also stated that even before the Ld. AO the assessee could not make any presentation of facts due to the reason that the address given by the assessee to the Income Tax Department was not occupied by him and the tenant occupying the same could not receive the notices because she was working and would not be available during day time. It was the submission that the assessee had supplied an alternative address to the Ld. AO but no notice was given on that address. For this reason there could be no compliance before the Ld. AO, who thereafter passed an ex parteorder.
It was further stated by the Ld. AR that even during appellate proceedings there was delay since the assessee came to know about an adverse assessment order only when recovery proceedings started against him. Thereafter, he filed the first appeal, which unfortunately was dismissed on account of delay in filing of the same. The Ld.AR also placed on record an affidavit by the assessee narrating the facts and also giving the reasons for delay.
It was the prayer that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. AO so that the facts could be thrashed out appropriately.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted a short synopsis of arguments dated 17.03.2026. In this synopsis it was averred that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the Ld. AO and there was a substantial delay before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not deemed fit to be condoned.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has made out an adequately justifiable case for explaining the delay of 566 days before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order in quantum (ITA 6749) and remand the same back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
Regarding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act (ITA 6750) it deserves to be held that since the quantum matter has been restored to the file of Ld. AO, hence, the impugned penalty cannot survive. However, the Ld. AO would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in case it is required to be done on the basis of any enhancement of income.
In the result, ITA Nos. 6749 & 6750 are allowed for statistical purposes.