AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal of the assessee is dir ected against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC , Delhi dated 13.10.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein appeal has been dismissed ex-parte on the ground of non-compliance with the notices issued dur ing the appellate proceedings as w ell as the assessment proceeding s.
The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal. The conte nts of the applicatio n are reproduced as under:
The Hon'ble Members Income Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
Re: Sh. Sheesh Ram ("the Assessee"/"the Appellant") PAN: AVOPR1547E Assessment Year (AY): 2017-18
Subject: Requesting application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('the Hon'ble ITAT')
Respected Bench Member,
In relation to the captioned matter, the Appellant wishes to humbly and respectfully bring to kind notice of the Hon'ble ITAT bench that this appeal is being filed aggrieved to the appellate order dated 13th October 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax – Appeal ('the Ld. CIT-A').
This appeal is being filed with delay of approx. two months and in this regard, the Appellant in hereinbelow paragraphs respectfully submits that such delay is due to sufficient cause and accordingly, humbly pray to condone the delay in filing this appeal and admit the same.
The Appellate is a farmer and engaged in the activities of irrigation and growing the crop in the field. The assessment and appeal proceedings of the Appellant were assigned to a tax consultant. In this regard, email ID of that tax consultant i.e. [email protected] is updated on the income tax portal, wherein all the communications are received.
The Appellant was not aware about the receipt of orders from the tax authorities. The tax consultant has forwarded an email dated 07 January 2026 to a person, known to the Appellant on 19 February 2026. The Appellant was informed that this is letter of recovery of outstanding tax demand.
In reference to above, the known person of the Appellant has verified the income tax portal and informed that since the first appellate authority has concluded the proceedings in October 2025, and hence letter of recovery of tax has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
We have consid ered the contents of the condonation application and the submissions made by the ld. AR. We find that the assesse e has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Co urt in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), wherein it has been held that a liberal approach should be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay to substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 70 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, and the appeal is admitted for ad judication on merits.
During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. However, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay before the ld. CIT(A), explaining that the assessee is an illiterate senior citizen engaged in agricultural activities, was unable to operate the income-tax portal, and could not access the notices as the e-filing account was linked with ano ther person's mobile numb er and e mail address. Consequently, the assessee could no t effectively represent his case either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. C IT(A). The ld. C IT(A), ho wever, was no t satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitatio n without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.
The ld. DR re lied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the no sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the ld. C IT(A) did not condone the delay in dispute and rightly dismissed the appeal o f the assessee, which does no t need any interference.
We have heard the parties and perused the material availab le on reco rd. We noticed that the Hon'b le Supreme Court in the case of C ollector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji&Ors., (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), was pleased to hold regarding the condonation o f delay as under:
“The Legislatur e has c onferred t he power to co ndone dela y by enacti ng section 51 o f the Limitati on Act of 1963 in order to enabl e the courts to do substantial justice t o parti es by disposi ng of matters on de merits”.
The expr essi on “sufficient caus e” empl oyed by t he Legisla ture is ad equately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law i n a meani ngful ma nner which subserves the ends of j usti ce t hat bei ng the life-purpose of t he existence of the i nstituti on of courts . It is co mmon kno wledge that this court has been maki ng of j ustifiably liberal appr oac h i n matters i nstituted i n t his co urt. B ut the message do es not appear to have perc olated down to all the other courts in the hi erarc hy.
And such a liberal approac h is adopted o n pri nciple as it is realized t hat:
1.Ordinarily, a litigant d oes not stand to bene fit by lodgi ng an appeal late.
2.Refusi ng to condo ne delay can result i n a meritori ous matt er bei ng thrown out at the ver y thr eshol d and c ause of j ustice bei ng defeat ed. As against this, whe n delay is co ndoned, the hi ghest tha t c an happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.”
In view of the above, it is w ell 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 op inion, 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 mad e by the assessee regarding condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
In view of the ab ove facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and principle of natur al justice has not been followed. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment w as framed ex-parte and there fore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudicatio n afresh after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. We have noticed that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has recorded that the assessee neither furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment during the assessment proceedings. Considering the above facts and in the light of comple te non-compliance by the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition without any material having been produced or sub mitted on behalf of the assessee before comple tion of the assessment. Similar observations have also been recorded in paras 2 & 3 o f the assessment orde r, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the assessee neither submitted any response nor filed any reply. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the ld. AR, we find it expedient, in the interest of justice , the matter needs to b e restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after giving an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the AO within the period of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.