AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 16.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-27, Delhi.
In this case, the Ld. AO passed an order dated 24.09.2021, through which on account of inadequate compliance to the notices issued by the Ld.AO, sundry creditors, other expenses and difference in figure of interest income as per 26AS, were added.
The assessee approached the CIT(A) where the appeal was filed with a delay of 31 days. This delay was not condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal inlimine.
The assessee has challenged this action of Ld. CIT(A) and has also challenged the addition on merits.
Before us the Ld. AR stated that due to a communication gap between the tax consultant and the assessee there was a marginal delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was averred that the assessee intimated the reasons for delay before the Ld. CIT(A) but the same were not considered. It was prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that a marginal delay of 31 days deserves to be condoned on the basis of the reasons given by the assessee. We are convinced of the reasons for delay and, therefore, we condone the same, set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) would give ample opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.