AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 24.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.
In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the grounds of limitation since there was a delay of 741 days in the filing of first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) did not believe the assessee’s contention that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant he was totally unaware about an assessment order which itself had been passed in an ex parte manner. The appeal was, thereafter, dismissed in limine. The assessee has approached the ITAT with as many as 19 grounds, most of which challenge the dismissal of appeal in limine.
The Ld. AR pointed out that the reasons for delay were duly laid out in the space provided for the same in Form No.35 as under: -
“As the assessee was unaware of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the demand came to our knowledge only after it was brought to our attention by one of our tax consultants who noticed it on the Income Tax Portal. Upon becoming aware of the same, we are now filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal to justify that the demand raised by the AO is not warranted, based on the clarifications and supporting documents we possess.
In light of the above, we kindly request you to consider this application and grant us an opportunity to be heard in appeal so that we may present our case and seek the quashing of the said demand.”
Incidentally, the assessee himself was also present, along with the Ld. AR, and it was explained by him that he is an ex-serviceman who was entirely dependent on his tax consultant for complying with the formalities pertaining to assessment procedure and subsequent action. It was stated by the assessee himself that he was made aware of an adverse assessment order only when a huge demand outstanding against him was brought to his notice. Thereafter, the Ld. AR prayed for one more chance to present the facts before the authorities below.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. AR, the assessee himself and the ld. DR. It is felt that there were good and sufficient reasons available with the assessee for explaining the delay and the same could have been utilized for the discretionary powers available u/s 249(3) of the Act, at first appellate stage. Thus, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay at first appellate stage and set aside the impugned order. Since the factual matrix of the case has not been brought out at any of the stages below, hence we deem it fit to remand this matter to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The Ld. AR has pointed out that the additions made by the Ld. AO have no basis in fact. Be that as it may, we would expect the Ld. AO to give sufficient opportunity of being heard and the assessee would present all documents available with him for necessary assessment.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.