Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 for A.Y. 2010-11. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay, as notices were sent to an old address. The assessee claimed to be a senior citizen and attributed the delay to lack of proper communication and personal reasons, including the death of his son.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the lack of proper opportunity to be heard, which violated natural justice. The Tribunal also held that the assessment order and appellate order lacked proper adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Whether the matter requires to be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 21
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.
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 25.10.2017 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2010-11. P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai 2. In this case, the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act and the subsequent appeal filed before the first appellate authority was also dismissed on account of delay in filing the appeal.
2.1 In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has contested dismissal of his appeal by the ld.CIT(A)stating that the appellate authority erred in not appreciating the all notices were issued to an address vacated by the assessee since 1994. He acted contrary to the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting an effective personal hearing on the condonation of delay or on the merits, thereby depriving him of a fair and reasonable opportunity. The assessee came to know of the assessment order and demand only upon checking the income tax e-filing portal, where after he promptly acted to file an appeal, clearly demonstrating bona fides, good faith and lack of any mala fides or deliberate delay or evasion. The ld. CIT(A) by refusing to condone delay and declining to hear on merits, has violated the settled principles of natural justice, denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity to contest the additions, particularly in a matter affecting substantial rights of a senior citizen.
3. According to the appellate order, it was noticed that the appeal was filed belatedly, i.e. beyond the ‘due date’ with delay of almost P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2010-11 Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai two years. Before him, it was stated that notices were sent to an address which was no longer relevant. However, it was observed by the ld.CIT(A) that as long as the address had not been changed and provided proof of the change to the department, service was considered correct. Therefore, the reasons provided were found insufficient and did not constitute reasonable cause under the law. Thus, the delay was not condoned. Besides, during the course of appellate proceedings various notice were issued from time to time and the assessee was requested to file reply along with supporting documents but there was no compliance. The appeal was dismissed in limine on account of being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act.
4. Before us, the ld.AR has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged 70.The delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was on account of the fact that the notices of hearing were sent on wrong address. Moreover, the assessment order itself was served quite late. It is also stated that his son who used to look after the tax matters expired prematurely which caused further delay. It is submitted that a sympathetic view of the matter may be taken as the delay was not deliberate and malafide. Rejection thereof would cause genuine hardship to the assessee. The case may also be remanded to the ld.AO assuring proper compliance before him.
P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2010-11 Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai 5. On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present appeal was not intentional but due lack of proper communication as also on account of certain personal reasons. It is worth mentioning here that the assessee an individual taxpayer is a senior citizen. Moreover, the ld.CIT(A) is also not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay without affording any opportunity to the assessee to explain it which is against the principles of natural justice and also amounts to taking away a substantive right of the assessee. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand P a g e | 5 A.Y. 2010-11 Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay.
As regards merits of the case, the AR made a request to remand the entire matter to the file of the AO for necessary compliance and proper consideration of its submissions and supporting evidences. The ld.DR however, objected to such request stating that the assessee had not cited any cogent reason for non-compliance before both the authorities below.
We have duly perused the records from which it is noticed that in this case, the assessment order as also the appellate order were passed without proper adjudication on merits of the case as the assessee did not submit relevant documents and evidences in support of the issues involved before both the authorities. We are of the considered view that entire matter needs proper consideration by the AO.As such, we are granting a final opportunity to the assessee to advance his arguments/submissions before the him so as to provide details in connection with the merits of the case and additional evidences, if any to support his contentions. Accordingly, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the appellate order and restore the entire matter back to the AO for passing the assessment order de novo after allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2010-11 Bharat Govindji Thakker, Mumbai 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)