AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals are barred by limitation, with a delay of 86 days in the filing of appeal. The assessee has relied on a number of case laws and has also mentioned the reasons for the said delay as under: -
“1.In the present case, the Learned CIT(A) passed order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.06.2025.
2.An appeal is to be filed within 60 days before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from date of service of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
3.The Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after the expiration of period of 60 days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 60 days.
4.It is submitted in this regard that the appellant is senior citizen aged about 72 years old and not tech-savvy, She is not proficient in navigating the portal and checking the ongoing proceedings and thus was unaware of the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and since the same was never served physically served at the registered address of the appellant, he was unaware of the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals).
5.It was only during the month of August, 2025 that the professional of the appellant on going through the E-Filing Portal of the Income-Tax Department during filing of the income tax return came across that fact that order under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 had been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) back in June, 2025.
6.It is pertinent to mention that in relation to the order passed against the assessee on 30.06.2025, assessee consulted with his legal counsel and appeal fees was duly paid within the prescribed time.
7.The counsel of the Appellant was in the process of filing the appeal on the portal, however, due to technical issues and non-functioning of the website, the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time.
8.It was for the aforesaid reason that the present appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Delhi Bench with a delay of 148 days.
9.Under these circumstances, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to file the appeal within 60 days of the passing of the Appeal Order u/s 250.
10.From the above, the Hon'ble Members would observe that proper steps. were taken but to the misfortune of the appellant, appeal as mandated by the statute was not filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal in view of the circumstances explained hereinabove and therefore it could not be assumed that the appellant would not have intended to challenge the additions and There was no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant and thus request the Honorable Tribunal to condone the delay.
In this connection, the appellant places reliance upon the following decisions: ………………………….”
Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
These appeals arise from impugned orders both dated 30.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-26. A perusal of these appeals shows that a search was conducted on the Rakesh Jain Group on 02.11.2017, during the course of which certain documents pertaining to the assessee were seized. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added Rs.227,90,000/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs.107,22,500/- also u/s 69A of the Act on account of certain, alleged, unexplained cash payments.
The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) for both the years but, as is recorded in the first paragraph itself of both the impugned orders, there was no submission made on behalf of the assessee. Needless to say, ex parte orders were passed confirming the action of Ld. AO’s for both the years.
The aggrieved assessee has now approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the additions and the findings in the impugned orders.
Before us the Ld. AR argued on legal grounds and also on ground of merit. However, it was fairly mentioned that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) since there was a communication gap between the tax consultant and the assessee. The Ld. AR also filed a synopsis of argument which have been taken on record.
The Ld. DR took us through a relevant portion from the assessment order and thereafter relied on the findings given by the Ld. AO/CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the submissions made before us, including the findings given in the impugned order. It is seen that since the assessee did not attend to the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) hence, he has suffered adverse ex parte orders. At this stage, we deem it necessary that the legal aspects and the factual aspects both need to be thrashed out at the stage of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remand these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding not only on merit but also on the legal objections raised by the assessee, challenging the assumption of jurisdiction.
In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.