Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 398 days. The assessee claimed the delay was unintentional and bonafide, due to a change in address not being intimated to the AO, leading to non-receipt of assessment orders and demand notices. The CIT(A) rejected these reasons, taking a pedantic view.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide and condoned it, emphasizing a liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also restored the issue of tax credit to the AO for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and if the issue of tax credit should be restored to the AO.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y. 2011-12) Shashwat Verma, Flat-34, London House, London NW8 7PX, ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant United Kingdom PAN: AFSPV-5520-M बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(1), R.No. 2109, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant by : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 30/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 20.12.2024, for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The appeal is time barred by 88 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the reasons for delay stated in application appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 88 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
(AY 2011-12) 3. Shri Mayank Patawari, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) has dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee is permanently reallocated to the United Kingdom in July 2012 and is holding British Citizenship since then. Before moving to the Great Britain, the assessee was residing with his father in a Government accommodation. After the assessee was reallocated to the United Kingdom, the father of the assessee also retired from the Government Service and vacated the Govt. accommodation allotted to him. However, change in address remain to be intimated to the Assessing Officer (AO). The notices and the assessment order were sent to the old address which were never received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the assessment order and the demand notice through his father at a much later stage. Immediately, the assessee engaged a tax consultant and applied for the certified copy of the assessment order and filed appeal before the CIT(A). This resulted in delay of 398 days in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). He further submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) was unintentional and for the bonafide reasons mentioned above. The assessee had explained these very reasons to the CIT(A) in Form No.
35. The CIT(A) disbelieved the submissions of the assessee and dismissed appeal in limine on ground of delay in filing of appeal. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 for condoning delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A).
The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has prima facie good case in his favour. Explaining the case on merits, he submitted that the assessee had filed return of income in reply to notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax (AY 2011-12) Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 27.12.2018 declaring income of Rs.6,45,490/-. The AO has made addition of Rs.6,12,890/- on the basis of 26AS and has also not given the benefit of tax credit.
Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that firstly the assessee has failed to furnish return of income within time specified in notice u/s. 148 of the Act and has failed to participate in the assessment proceedings. Secondly, appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) was time barred by 398 days and the assessee failed to show sufficient reason for delay in filing of appeal. Hence, the CIT(A) rightly dismissed appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation.
Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation. The assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of appeal in Form No.
The CIT(A) taking a pedantic view dismissed appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of limitation alone.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in an unequivocal manner has repeatedly held that acceptance of reason explaining delay should be the rule and refusal an exception. By taking a pedantic and hyper technical view, the explanation furnished should not be rejected, causing loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The expression “sufficient cause” should be liberally construed so as to sub-serve the ends of justice. 7.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that liberal approach should be adopted while (AY 2011-12) dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. 7.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others (2002) 3 SCC 195/AIR 2002 SC 1201 has held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. The courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal derive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party.
The reason explained by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal appears to be bonafide. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned.
A short prayer of ld. Counsel for the assessee on merits is that the assessee has not been given benefit of tax credit. Without commenting on merits of addition, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO to pass the assessment order afresh. The AO while passing the fresh assessment order shall allow credit of advance tax/TDS deposited for the relevant period.
(AY 2011-12) 10. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 30th day of July, 2025.