AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“1.Ground No. 1
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making an Order under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by disposing of the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which require granting an opportunity of being heard to the appellant before disposing of the appeal.
Ground No. 2
The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order without granting condonation of delay and without calling for any supporting evidence, specifically for condonation of delay.
Ground No. 3
The Appellant submits that the delay of 409 days in filing the appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was neither deliberate nor due to any negligence on the part of the Appellant.”
Brief facts are that an appeal was been filed by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) on 14.10.2025, against the order u/s 154 of the Act dated 01.08.2024, passed by the CPC, Bengaluru for the year under consideration, as per Form No 35. Subsequently, the said appeal was migrated to the NeFAC in terms of Notification No. 77 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020. Accordingly, a notice of hearing u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee through the ITBA module. Later on, the present appeal proceeding was transferred to the work list of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik, from the NeFAC in terms of CBDT Notification No. 33/2023/F.No.370142/10/2023-TPL dated 29.05.2023, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary and the subsequent order dated 16.06.2023 passed u/s 246(6) of the I.T. Act,1961 by the CBDT specifying the scope of the newly notified e-Appeals Schemes, 2023 introduced in the Act. Hence, the pending appellate proceeding was taken up under the e-Appeals Schemes, 2023. Accordingly, a notice of hearing u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 26.02.2026 by the Ld. CIT(A) which was served upon the assessee through the ITBA module.
The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order observed that the intimation u/s 154 was passed on 01.08.2024 which was received by the assessee on 01.08.2024. The appeal was filed on 14.10.2025 and, hence, there was a delay in filing of appeal of 409 days. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 409 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), beyond the prescribed period of limitation, stating that the assessee has failed to substantiate that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above-mentioned grounds.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee has failed to substantiate the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee furnished an affidavit of the assessee and stated that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the serious illness and hospitalisation of the assessee’s CA, Shri Mohan Agarwal and subsequent death of him and the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional and the assessee had bona fide reasons for filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation. The Ld. AR for the assessee, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the first appeal be condoned and the assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities as the assessee has got a good case on the merits.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed condoning the delay and providing the assessee with another opportunity.
In the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld.CIT(A), by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation where the substantial law ought to prevail more than the procedural lapses, which proposition has been reiterated by various rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court and High Courts. We, therefore, remand this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him and decide the issue on the basis of the submissions of the assessee on the merits and in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay from his side. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as per the above observations.