Sanjay Raghuvanshi vs ITO

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 21.03.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT (A) Noida-1/11357/2019-20 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

It is observed that the appeal was filed delayed by 178 days. Before us, an application for condonation of delay was filed duly supported by the affidavit of the assessee. In the said petition, it is stated that the assessee has appointed a Chartered Accountant to represent his case but unfortunately the counsel has not filed any submissions before the CIT(A) and therefore, the appeal was decided ex-parte. Since the assessee was not aware of any such order passed by ld. CIT(A) which fact was come to his knowledge only when a notice of pending penalty proceedings was received by the assessee. Thereafter assessee immediately contacted to another counsel and filed the appeal. Due to these circumstances, significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was occurred which is neither intentional nor deliberate and due to the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, therefore, it is requested to condone the delay.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR vehemently opposed to the request of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Having considered the arguments of both the parties. We find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 178 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapses on the part of the litigant concerned however, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against him. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of appeal on merit ought not to be rejected. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is hereby, condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is being adjudicated on the basis of material available on record and in the absence of the assessee.

Heard the contention of ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on records. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the assessee has failed to file any submission to explain the nature and source of cash deposited in the bank accounts during the entire year. Even during appellate proceedings, assessee has not filed any submission despite of repeated opportunities. Under these circumstances, as a principle of the natural justice, one more opportunity is given to the assessee and the matter is remitted back to the file of the AO with direction to pass the assessment order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in set aside proceedings before the AO. With these directions, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.