AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi for the 2015-16. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
1.The assessee denies the determined tax liability of Rs.35,58,542/- along with the addition of Rs.63,19,006 made in the total income of the assessee. Income was assessed on 07.03.2023 and tax liability was Rs.23,68,224. Later, the A.O rectified the demand to Rs. 35,58,542/- vide order passed w/y 154 r.w.s. 147 on 01.05.2024. Rs. 3558542
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on 2 the ground of delay, without appreciating that the appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not condoning the delay despite the fact that the impugned assessment order was served upon the appellant only on 16.07.2024 and the appeal was filed immediately thereafter on 14.08.2024,
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is an uneducated agriculturist, not conversant with income-tax laws, and was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal earlier due to lack of proper legal assistance and unawareness of the assessment order. The assessee affidavit, which was on record, was ignored.
5.That the dismissal of the appeal on technical grounds, without adjudicating the issues on merits, is arbitrary, unjustified, unsupported by evidence, unsustainable both on facts and in law, 5 and contrary to the settled principle that substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. That the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the documents on record. Natural Justice was voided by Ld. CIT(A).
6.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in ignoring binding judicial precedents which hold that a liberal approach should be adopted while deciding applications for condonation of delay, particularly in cases involving genuine hardship. He had overlooked the documents on record. The Ld. GIT(A has wrongly considered the delay of 496 days in filling the appeal.
7.That the Ld. CIT(A) and A.O ignore the facts that the land sold was not capital assets, as the land in question is purely agricultural land and is situated beyond a distance of 8 kilometres from the municipal limits. The document filed by the assessee supporting documents was overlooked by the authority below.
At the very outset the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay without appreciating that the appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The Ld. Counsel made a prayer to condone the delay and remand this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication
Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order for dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. We have also seen a reason brought on record by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned therein we are of this considered view that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the case afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the relevant details and documents before the ld. CIT(A) in time.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.