Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against an order passed by the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The appeal was delayed by 237 days due to the death of the assessee and subsequent issues with property succession and consultant's advice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had passed a non-speaking order, failing to adjudicate the issues properly.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 250(6), 250(4), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b)
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: Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 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. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 24.12.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.
A.Y. 2017-18 Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar (through L/R Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,43,287/- to the income of the appellant as unexplained income u/s.69A. We pray that the addition of Rs.5,43,287/- be deleted.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing Municipal taxes of Rs.16,941/- incurred by the appellant for business purpose. We pray that the expense of Rs.16,941/- be allowed.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in estimating the Income from House Property at Rs 1,93,200/- and has added the difference between Income already offered and Income estimated by the CIT(Appeals), to the income of the appellant. Hence, we pray that the addition of Rs.1,36,500/- be deleted.
4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing Rs.5,32,553/- being 20 percent of salary expense of Rs.26,62,767/- on ad hoc basis incurred by the appellant for business purpose. We pray that the expense of Rs.5,32,553/- be allowed.
5. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred by making an addition of Rs.22,944/- which was debited to the profit and loss account of the appellant for loss by shortage which is on account of evaporation of petrol and diesel and is a normal loss considering the nature of business of the appellant. Hence, we pray that the addition of Rs.22,944/- be deleted.
6. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred by making an addition of Rs.15,306/ of cash balance to the income of the appellant. Hence, we pray that the addition of Rs. 15,306/- be deleted.
7. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing Rs. 1,17,367/-being 20 percent of repairs and maintenance expense of Rs.26,62,767/- on ad hoc basis incurred by the appellant for business purpose. We pray that the expense of Rs.1,17,367/- be allowed.
8. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing Rs.1,15,171/- being 10 percent of fuel expenses of Rs.11,51,717/- on ad hoc basis incurred by the appellant for business purpose. We pray that the expense of Rs.1,15,171/- be allowed.
9. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in disallowing Rs.1,37,700/- of repairing expenses incurred by the appellant for business purpose. We pray that the expense of Rs.1,37,700/- be allowed.
10. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred by making an addition of Rs.1,61,435/ of Tanker Rent to the income of the appellant. Hence, we pray that the the addition of 1,61,435/- be deleted.
A.Y. 2017-18 Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar (through L/R Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) 3. At the outset, we noticed that the instant appeal is delayed by 237 days.In this respect, a condonation application has been submitted along with an affidavit of the Sri Mrujesh S. Golatkar, son of the deceased assessee who submitted that his mother, the assessee died in a road accident on 13.6.2022.His father had also expired earlier on 07.10.2021.Since his mother did not leave any will, in order to avoid any dispute regarding properties left behind,he filed succession certificate before appropriate Court and as the said certificate came only in February 2025, ownership of the Petrol Pump of the late assessee could be finalised. Besides, due to wrong advise of the consultant, there was further delay in filing of the appeal. However, after certain clarification, immediate action was taken for filing of appeal.The LR has also submitted an affidavit from the Tax Consultant Sri Shashi Kant Kamat who endorsed the contentions of the L/H regarding the wrong advice given by his office leading to the delay. It is admitted that the wrong advise was not given with an intention to mislead but without proper supervision of the Junior Staff. He has also requested for condoning the delay by taking a lenient view of the matter.
On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in filing of the present A.Y. 2017-18 Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar (through L/R Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) appeal was not intentional but due to unavoidable and sufficient cause. Such a bonafide mistake needs to be condoned. 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 to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay.
Before us, the L/H admitted that proper representation of the case could not be done due to unavoidable reasons and sought permission of the Bench to file additional evidences as well. A request was also made to remand the entire matter to the file of the AO for necessary compliance for proper consideration of its submissions and A.Y. 2017-18 Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar (through L/R Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) supporting evidences. The ld.DR however, objected to such request stating that the assessee has 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 also find that the appellate order has been passed in a non-speaking manner as neither the issues involved have been duly considered as also the submissions of the assessee nor the grounds of appeal
have been adjudicated clearly.No independent application of mind is discernible from the appellate order as the ld.CIT(A) has completely failed to evaluate the points of consideration so as to give his own decision on objective analysis of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and fair play.
7. In the light of above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits which is contrary to the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. A bare perusal of above provision makes it clear that the CIT(A) is bound to dispose of the A.Y. 2017-18 Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar (through L/R Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) appeal before him on merits. Once an appeal is preferred before him, then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AOto make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as per section 250(4) of the Act. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. The appellate order is therefore, deficient in this regard.
During the course of hearing, we proposed to send the appeal back to the file of the ld.AO in the light of above discussion 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. Both sides had no objection to this proposition. 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’s representative.
Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed A.Y. 2017-18 Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar (through L/R Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by him independently and in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2025.