Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2016-17 and did not comply with the AO's notices, leading to additions. The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 141 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay, including being out of India and being a senior citizen, had some truth and should not be brushed aside. The appeal was therefore set aside, directing the First Appellate Authority to decide on merits after condoning the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
139(1), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & MS. PADMAVATHY S
O R D E R
Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 27.06.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The basic grievance of the assessee in present appeal is against dismissal of his appeal in- limine by learned First Appellate Authority on the ground of delay.
Briefly stated, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, as stated by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee did not file any return of income under section (u/s.) 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) despite entering into high value transactions. Therefore, based on information available with him, the AO reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. In course of assessment proceeding, the AO, from time to time, issued show cause notices to the assessee, calling upon him to furnish various information relating to purchase and sale of equity shares, sale of immovable properties etc. As noted by the AO, despite reasonable opportunity being granted, the assessee did not comply with various show cause notices issued and did not furnish supporting evidences to prove the transactions. Thus, in absence of supporting evidence, the AO made couple of additions aggregating to Rs.51,27,104/-. Contesting the additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 141 days. Though, the assessee explained the cause of delay and sought condonation thereof, however, learned First Appellate Authority was not convinced with the reasons shown for delay. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal in-limine without condoning the delay.
Having considered rival submissions, we find, before the First Appellate Authority, while seeking condonation of delay, the assessee had explained that during the intervening period, the assessee was out of India. Further, he had stated that he is a senior citizen of 64 years and shifted to his native place in Mangalore, Karnataka. He had further stated that he lost his mobile number registered with the Income Tax Department, hence, did not receive any information regarding the completion of assessment.
Before us as well, the assessee submitted that due to the aforestated reasons, the assessee had no information regarding the completion of assessment. Further, the Authorized Representative who was handling the tax related issues did not inform him in proper time, therefore, the delay.
On perusal of the assessment order, we find, the disputed additions have been made purely due to lack of supporting evidence furnished by the assessee Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the additions by furnishing supporting evidence. Due to dismissal of his appeal in-limine on account of delay, the assessee did not get the opportunity to furnish the supporting evidences before learned First Appellate Authority. We have further observed that the delay is of 141 days, hence, cannot be considered to be inordinate. Further, the assessee has explained the cause of delay before the First Appellate Authority.
Having perused such submission, we are of the view that there can be some truth in assessee’s explanation hence, cannot be brushed aside completely. Thus, on overall consideration of facts and materials on record, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned First Appellate Authority, with a direction to decide assessee’s appeal on merits after condoning delay. Further, we direct the assessee to promptly respond to the hearing notice to be issued by learned First Appellate Authority and effectively participate in the proceedings to bring finality to it.
With the aforesaid observations, issues are restored back to the file of learned First Appellate Authority.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /10/2025.