Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed their return of income and was selected for limited scrutiny. A notice under section 143(2) was issued, to which the assessee failed to respond. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144, making additions for unexplained credits. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a significant delay.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessee's reason for the delay in filing the appeal was bonafide, and thus condoned the delay. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the matter should be remanded for de-novo assessment.
Sections Cited
139, 143(2), 144, 68
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.2016-17) Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, 16A, Fisher Street, Victoria, Australia 314500 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AUGPS-4400-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : None �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 19.12.2024, for assessment year 2016-17.
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee filed return of income u/s. 139 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for impugned assessment year declaring total income of Rs.8,11,370/-. The return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 14.07.2017 was issued to the assessee. Despite service of aforesaid notice, the assessee failed to respond to the same. The Assessing Officer (AO)
(AY 2016-17) invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and completed the assessment after making addition of Rs.8,87,500/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credits in his bank account. Against the assessment order dated 31.12.2018 passed u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). According to the CIT(A), appeal was filed belatedly by five months, hence, dismissed appeal in limine on the ground of limitation. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the assessee had explained the reason for delay in filing of appeal before First Appellate Authority as under:- “The appellant is residing in Australia since 31.07.2015. All communications from the AO were sent on Income tax Portal only. However, Indian Income Tax portals including Form 26AS access is barred from overseas IP addressed. Hence, appellant could not view any notices/assessment order that were sent on the income tax portal. Appellant came to know about the assessment order in May 2019 when he visited India and logged into the IT Portal. Thus, there is bonafide reason for delay in filing appeal.” The CIT(A) despite specific reason given by the assessee causing delay in filing of appeal dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation.
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. 3.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone (AY 2016-17) 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. 3.2 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 is condoned.
From examination of the assessment order it emerges that the assessee has failed to respond to notices issued by the AO. The reason for non compliance of notices by the assessee has been explained by the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the issues back to the AO for de- novo assessment. The AO before passing fresh assessment order shall grant reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.