AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):
Both appeals are filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 18.09.2025 and 14.10.2025 respectively wherein the delay in filing the appeal was declined and appeal was dismissed.
By this common order, we propose to decide two appeals, as the assessee is same and the appeals pertain to the quantum order as well as the penalty order, respectively.
The only grievance of the appellant is that the ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay in filing the appeals despite sufficient cause having been shown by the assessee/appellant.
The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the respondent/assessee has not filed ITR for A.Y. 2012-13 and from the date available with ITD system it has been found that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 19,04,000/- in his saving bank account maintained with Union Bank of India during Financial year 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act and show cause notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 08.11.2019 because statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act having been issued on 22.07.2019, 19.08.2019 were not complied with. The assessee has not filed any reply even in show cause notice dated 08.11.2019. Since, the assessee did not comply the statutory notice, hence, the AO finalized the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 19,04,000 was treated as income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act and accordingly, the addition of the said amount was made and penalty proceeding were also initiated.
Even the penalty proceeding were concluded ex parte vide order dated 07.01.2022 where the penalty of Rs. 4,35,896/- was imposed. The assessee has challenged the quantum order as well as the penalty order before the ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals has been dismissed on the ground of delay wherein the Ld. CIT(A) refused the condone the delay.
We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue. Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that sufficient cause was shown before the ld. CIT(A) for seeking condonation of delay but the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the justified reasons and has dismissed the appeal in limine refusing the condonation of delay which has resulted into miscarriage of justice and therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order and restore the case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh.
Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has miserably failed to justify the condonation of delay approximately 1227 days in filing the appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and prayed for his dismissal of both the appeals i.e. quantum appeal as well as penalty appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and examined the record. From the impugned appellate order, we have noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay of around 2048 days in filing the quantum appeal and around 1227 days delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order. The quantum appeal has been dismissed by making observation in para 5.1.17 extracted as below:
“5.1.17The instant appeal has been filed electronically by the appellant on 31.07.2025 against the assessment order dated 23.11.2019 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It is noted that the appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of approximately 2048 days. However, the appellant has neither acknowledged this delay in column 12 of Form No. 35, nor has he filed any application or submission seeking condonation of the same. The appellant has merely mentioned the date of service of the assessment order as 14.07.2025, which is clearly inconsistent with the date of the order, i.e., 23.11.2019, and no evidence or proof of such service has been placed on record to substantiate this claim. In the absence of credible evidence, the date of service as stated in column 2(d) of Form No. 35 cannot be relied upon. The instant appeal has been filed electronically by the appellant on 31.07.2025 against the assessment order dated 23.11.2019 passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Faridabad, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It is observed that the appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of approximately 2048 days. However, the appellant has neither acknowledged the delay in column 12 of Form No. 35 nor submitted any application or explanation seeking condonation of the same. The appellant has mentioned the date of service of the assessment order as 14.07.2025, which is clearly inconsistent with the order date of 23.11.2019, and no documentary proof has been submitted to substantiate the claimed date of service. In the absence of any evidence, the stated date of service in column 2(d) of Form No. 35 is not reliable or acceptable. Further, despite issuance of notices under section 250 of the Act on 12.08.2025 and 29.08.2025, providing the appellant opportunity of being heard, he has remained non-compliant and has not submitted any request for condonation or furnished any reason for such an inordinate delay. As a result, the appellant has failed to establish any valid or sufficient cause to justify the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is held to be time-barred and is dismissed in limine without admission on merits. As a result, the appellant has failed to establish any valid or sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is held to be time-barred and is dismissed in limine without going into the merits.”
The penalty appeal has been dismissed by making following observation in para 6.2.1 to 7 extracted as below:
“6.21From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the appellant has failed to provide any written submissions in support of the grounds of appeal. Consequently, keeping the appeal pending any further would serve no useful purpose. 6.22 The absence of the appellant during the hearing could arise from various reasons, such as a lack of intent to prosecute the appeal, an inability to effectively participate in the appellate proceedings, or possibly an attempt to exploit procedural technicalities. However, the precise reasons for the appellant's non-attendance and non-submission remain known only to the appellant. In these circumstances, the Appellate Authority is vested with inherent powers to adjudicate the appeal based on the available records. While these powers include the discretion to proceed ex-parte, they also impose an obligation to ensure that the principles of natural justice are upheld, and the appellant is not unfairly deprived of an opportunity to present their case. 6.23 Considering the above discussion and facts, and by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, it can be safely concluded that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending any further would serve no useful purpose. 6.24 The appellant was provided with multiple opportunities to comply with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. However, no response or submission was made by the appellant. It is also noted that the appellant has not sought any adjournment during the appellate proceedings to file any details or documents in support of the grounds of appeal raised in Form 35 or otherwise. Further, no material has been brought on record to contradict or rebut the findings recorded in the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer. In the absence of any compliance or supporting evidence from the appellant, no infirmity is found in the order passed by the Ld AO. Accordingly, and respectfully following the propositions laid down in the judicial decisions cited supra, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 7.0 As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed on both grounds: the delay in filing the appeal without sufficient cause, and the non-compliance during the appellate proceedings.
We have noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katlji & Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
"The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties."
In view of above, it is well settled law that the technicalities are hand-made of justice and the substantial rights of an assessee should not be defeated because of the technicalities. In our opinion, the explanation given by the assessee was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no contrary material is brought on record by the Revenue to the assertion made by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid well settled legal position, we are of the considered view that the instant case is fit for condoning the delay in dispute, because the explanation given by assessee before the Id. CIT(A) was sufficient and justified. In our view, dismissal of the appeals against the quantum proceedings as well as against the penalty proceedings, has resulted into miscarriage of justice. For these reasons, the impugned appellate order against the quantum proceeding is set aside. It is noted that the assessment order was also passed u/s 144 of the Act without effective representation by the assessee, hence, we deem it expedient to restore the matter in the quantum appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee. Since the appellate order against the quantum proceedings has been set aside and matter has been remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as aforesaid, the consequent penalty orders against the penalty proceedings also stand set aside, in the aforesaid manner. The assessee/appellant is directed to present its case within 60 days of passing of this order before the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos. 8185 to 8186/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose, in the aforesaid manner.