Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The NFAC had dismissed the appeal based on a 495-day delay without condoning it, despite the assessee providing sufficient cause.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 495 days in preferring the appeal before the NFAC/CIT(A), being satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the sufficient cause for delay and whether the NFAC's order was against the facts and law.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B, 69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “A”:NEW DELHI
Date of hearing 23.07.2025 Date of 25.07.2025 pronouncement ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 23.08.2024passed by theNational Faceless Appeal Centre (herein after referred {NFAC}pertaining to assessment order dated 29.12.2022for Assessment year 2021-22 under Sections 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”).
The assessee has raised the flowing grounds in appeal:
1. 1. The Id. CIT(A) failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that notices were issued; but has not mentioned the mode of service of the notices and the Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any finding of facts that the notices were served upon the Assessee.
3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the Purchases amounting to Rs.17,67,53,925.00 which is without any basis.
4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,29,100 on account of Rent Paid.
5. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 60,000 on account of Unexplained Expense.
6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,00,000 U/s 69C of The Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. The order of LD CIT(A) as well as LD AO is against the facts of the case and law.
8. The observations of LD CIT(A) as well as LD AO are against the facts of the case and law.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2021-22 on 05.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs.459870/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “Business Purchase”. The assessee has not made the compliance of the notices issued by the Assessing officer. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and assessed the A.Y. 2021-22 Amit Gupta vs. ITO 3 income of the assessee at Rs. 17,83,02,895/- after making the additions. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal being treated time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal.
We have heard the ld. CIT DR and perused the material available on record. None is present for assessee. Perusal of the order of the Ld. NFAS it reveals that the appeal was dismissed by adopting the hyper technical approach not condoning the delay of 495 days when the assessee has shown the sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The Ld. NFAC should have condone the delay and should have admit 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. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.