Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that dismissed it as time-barred due to a 50-day delay. The delay was reportedly due to the assessee's medical treatment. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 50-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of medical treatment and remitted the case back to the AO for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was liable to be condoned due to medical reasons, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 115BBE, 69A, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Nasiruddin, VS. ITO, Ward 2(1), 21/44, Muftivara, Behind Kotwali, Meerut Meerut (PAN: AVNPN6331P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Agarwal, CA Respondent by : Sh. Ram Kishan Meena, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 14.05.2025 ORDER
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and the facts of the case by 1. dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant as barred by limitation, ignoring the request for condonation of delay of 50 days in filing the appeal as made during the course of appeal proceedings. That the Ld. CIT(A) be directed to decide the appeal of the 2. appellant on merits. That the AO and CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by 3. charging income tax u/s. 115BBE, which was introduced by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment Act, 2016), enacted on 15.12.2016 to the alleged unexplained credit u/s. 69A of the Act, ignoring the legal position that the increased tax rate of 60% u/s. section 115BBE were applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2017 onwards and not to the transactions prior to the said cut off date. That the appellant respectfully craves leave to add alter omit or 4. substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal
at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal to enable goods self to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
2. In this case assessee has made cash deposits amounting to Rs. 19,95,000/- and other credit entries appearing in bank account of Rs. 35,07,480/- thereby total amounting to Rs. 55,02,980/-, which was added back in the hands of the assessee on account of non-explanation of the said amount. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of time barred.
3. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us.
4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that AO has passed the exparte order u/s. 144 of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of limitation. Hence, it was pleaded that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to canvass his case before the AO and accordingly, AO may be directed to decide the issues in dispute afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. Ld. Sr. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.