NAVEEN CHAND,NANDINI NAGAR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI

1. The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 08.01.2026 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matter is heard after recording submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful perusal of the materials available on record.

At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation by not condoning the delay of almost 2 years since sufficient cause was not established by the assessee in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’). The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to examine the sufficiency of cause and provide one final opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant documents/evidences to justify late filing of appeal in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act.

I find that on similar facts and circumstances, this Bench had provided one opportunity to the assessee to explain sufficiency of cause in 3 Naveen Chand Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Section 249(3) of the Act in the case of Prabal Aadhar Seva Sansthan Vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Raipur (C.G.), A.Y.2023-24, dated 13.11.2025, wherein it was held and observed as follows: “4. The issue to be looked into in the present matter is whether the assessee was always vigilant enough regarding proceedings i.e. the appeal to be filed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and what are the genuine efforts that were conducted by the assessee with his Counsel/Chartered Accountant so to file the appeal on time. In other words, it has to be seen whether the assessee was vigilant assessee, bonafide assessee and whether he has made sufficient efforts to ensure filing of its case before the first appellate authority on time. After verifying all these areas, only one can understand whether such ground of delay would be condoned in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, they will furnish all the relevant documents/evidences explaining the condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, in the interest of substantive justice, we allow one final opportunity to the assessee to present relevant evidence/documents before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC explaining the reasons for condonation of delay and after going through those evidences, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall specifically decide whether such delay can be condoned as per Section 249(3) of the Act and then decide on merits of the case in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. Further, as per the dictate of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on the ground of non- prosecution and the same jurisprudence transcends into the situation that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has no power to dismiss an appeal in limine on ground of delay only without referring and discussing the contents of the assessment

4 Naveen Chand Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Form 35 and its annexures. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is set-aside. 8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal

As per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 30th day of March, 2026.