Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2012-13. Later, information revealed large deposits in bank accounts, leading to reopening of the case under Section 147. The AO made an addition of Rs.4,90,000/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the reasons for delay and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. M. BALAGANESH & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR
ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
The appeal by assessee is preferred against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(NFAC)”] dated 11.10.2024 arising out of the order of the AO vide dated 16.12.2019 for Assessment Year 2012-13, on the following grounds of appeal: -
1. That the impugned ex-parte order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is erroneous in as much as: 4.1. The appeal has not been decided on merits; 4.2. It has been blatantly dismissed citing insufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal at the first appellate level; 4.3. No cognizance has been taken of the facts which led to actual delay in filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A); 4.4. The lion'ble CIT(A) has contradicted himself by first mentioning that facts of delay in appeal filing had not been provided (para 4) and then stating that his honours had carefully gone through the reasons for delay (para 6.2); 4.5. Ex- parte dismissal of appeal without discussing the merits of the case is in violation of various judgments of the jurisdictional ITAT (e.g. Pawan Kumar Singhal vs. ACIT-ITA No. 1005/Del/2009); and 4.6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has made baseless allegations against the Appellant by stating that the delay is a deliberate inaction on part of the Appellant.
Without prejudice to the above, based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred 2 in initially alleging that Ld. AO had unexplained cash deposits and making addition on account of unexplained time deposits. (where in Reasons recorded or Assessment Order) 3. That the impugned assessment order is fundamentally incorrect since the amount of unexplained income mentioned in the order and the amount of addition made to income of the deceased Appellant are different. 4. That the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 5. 8. That the Appellant craves to leave to add, amend, alter, discard any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
6. That the impugned reassessment is void-ab-initio in as much 6 as the Appellant had passed away much before the reopening of the reassessment.
That the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and therefore, is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
That the proceedings are invalid in law in as much as the 8 statutory requirement laid down under section 148 of the Act w.r.t. valid service of notice was not fulfilled.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income of Rs.11,37,960/- for the A.Y. 2012-13. Later on the department has received the information that the assessee has deposited the money of Rs.1.60 crores and Rs.3.30 crores in the bank account of state Bank of India and Union Bank of India respectively. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after obtaining the approval of the PCIT. Notices dated 29.03.2019 u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued but no reply was filed by the assessee. The AO completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.4,90,000/-.
Aggrieved the order of the AO the legal the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 10.11.2024 dismissed the appeal treated as time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the CIT(A), the legal heirs of the assessee file the appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. AR has submitted that the sufficient cause has been shown for condonation the delay in filing the appeal but without considering the facts of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal treating as time barred.
The Ld. DR supported the order of the lower authorities.
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the order of the Ld. NFAC it reveals that the appeal was dismissed by adopting the hyper technical approach not condoning the delay of 13 months. The Ld. NFAC should have condoned the delay and should have admitted the appeal for adjudication. The, assessee has shown the sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. Thus, keeping in view, the entire aspects of the matter, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) having been satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the assessee before the said authority. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is setting side, the issue to the file is restored before the Ld. CIT(A) who decide the matter to the file after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee/legal heirs. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
8.In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 31.07.2025.