AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 18.02.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of for assessment order dated 27.01.2025 of ld. Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for assessment year 2020-21.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee information was received at insight portal Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through Insight Portal software under the head of ‘RMS-Non filing of return module of Insight Portal. The assessee was provided with an opportunity of being heard by Ld. AO as per Section 148A(b) of the Act in which the assessee remained non-responsive. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 08.03.2024 intimation letter dated 26.06.2024, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.08.2024, reminder letter dated 30.09.2024, show cause notice u/s 144 of the act dated 09.10.2024, regular show cause notice dated 19.11.2024 were issued but the assessee did not reply. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 27.01.2024 made additions of Rs. 4,72,80,400/-.
Against order dated 27.01.2025 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing appeal and the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2026.
Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal.
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing appeal due to bona fide mistake by professional Chartered Accountant who was interested with filing appeal. Ld. AO had passed ex parte order without effective hearing to the assessee. So, the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.
Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 18.02.2026 dismissed application for condonation of delay of 115 days in filing appeal and appeal. The appellant/assessee had pleaded bona fide mistake by professional chartered accountant who was interested with filing appeal. The explanation does not smack of mala fides as appellant had not gained anything by not filing appeal within the period of limitation. Ld. AO had passed ex parte order dated 27.01.2025. The appellant/assessee has requested for restoration of matter to the AO which is not opposed. In view of above material facts and in interest of justice, the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A) and dated 27.01.2025 of ld. AO are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. AO for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.