Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had dismissed the appeals in limine due to delay. The delay was attributed to various criminal proceedings, custody, business closure, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had presented sufficient and genuine causes. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits with directions to pass a speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
(Asstt. Year : 2015-16) Kamal Goyal, VS. ITO, ward 2(2), 103, Tower-1, Beverly Park Apartment, Gurgugaon Dwarka Sector-22, Bagrola Barthal South West Delhi (PAN: AAAPG2783N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. Since the appeals are inter-connected, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts of (AY 2016-17). The following are the common grounds in all the appeals:-
1. 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is erred under the law while confirming the impugned order passed by the AO.
2. That the CIT(A) is erred under law while dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine as the delay in filing of appeal is not attributable to negligence on the part of appellant as alleged.
3. That based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred while dismissing the belated appeal without appreciating the sufficient and genuine causes of delay as furnished by the appellant.
That based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and has passed a non-speaking order by ignoring the merit bases submission duly filed by the appellant.
At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred by dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account limitation against the exparte assessment order without appreciating that the assessee had indeed presented a reasonable and sufficient cause explaining the delay in filing the said appeal. In support of this contention, he submitted that a Criminal Complaint against the assessee and his wife was lodged on 04.02.2017 in Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Gurgaon on complaint of M/s Dailmer Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., as a result thereof, that on 08.06.2017, 12.06.2017 and 17.07.2017 FIRs against assessee, wife and company in EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi by bankers were registered. On 9.9.2017 a Criminal Complaint against assessee, wife and company in EOW, Gurgaon by one Mr. Vikram Gupta. It was further submitted that the date of assessment order is 05.12.2017 and on 11.12.2017 DM Gurgaon passed order under SARFESI and on 06.01.2018 took possession of residential property and office and on 19.01.2018 a criminal complaint of Mr. Vikram Gupta was converted into FIR and assessee was taken into police custody and on 04.05.2018, EOW, Mandir Marg, Delhi took assessee in custody and impounded hard copy of records and hard disk of all computers lying at assessee’s company. During 2017-18 bankers impounded all vehicles used in transportation business and auctioned residence and office and during May, 2018 to July, 2019 in police/court custody and wife had remained on the run. In view of above, there was a closure of business, pressure from trade creditor, covid 19 pandemic, Civil and Criminal proceedings, new criminal / civil cases, 15 criminal /civil case against assessee at Delhi, Gurgaon, Hisar, Chandigarh, counter cases by assessee 268 nos. of appearance before court. It was submitted that during March, 2024 notice u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act was received and certified copy of assessment order was taken on 04.06.2024 and on 06.06.2024 this appeal was filed. He submitted that the aforesaid dates and events would show that there is reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal, hence, the delay in dispute may kindly be condoned. It was the further contention, that the NFAC, Delhi has not decided the appeal on the merits of the case, which is not permissible. Hence, it was requested that by condoning the delay in 2 | P a g e dispute before the ld. CIT(A), the matter may be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with the directions to pass a speaking order 3. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below, but she could not controvert the factual aspect of the case, as pleaded by the Ld. AR.
4. Upon careful consideration, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we find that reasonable cause has been attributed by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has occurred due to initiation of criminal case and judicial custody of the assessee; closure of business and covid 19 pandemic etc. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. Accordingly, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Our aforesaid decision will apply mutatis mutandis to other 03 appeals. Accordingly, the other 03 appeals are also allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid manner.