SH. JASPREET SINGH MUKHIJA,DELHI vs. CIT, CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR at length who assisted us with the facts of the case. Case records carefully perused and considered.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.6102/Del/2026 are as under : “1. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre, grossly erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal in limine on the grounds of the appellant filed for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s. 147 read with section 144, of the Act, vide order dated 20.03.2024 on lack of grounds in filing the appeal 285 days late, without appreciating facts of the case and the facts and submissions made by the appellant during the course of appeal proceedings. 2. That the National Faceless Appeal Centre grossly erred in law and on facts by refusing to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the appeal. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the delay was not intentional or due to gross negligence but was caused by a "sufficient cause" beyond the appellant's control. 3. The National Faceless Appeal Centre grossly erred in rejecting the appellant's explanation that the erstwhile Accounts Manager, who was responsible for the tax portal, left the job without informing the appellant of the receipt of the assessment order. The CIT(A) failed to consider the sworn affidavit and the practical difficulties faced by an individual taxpayer in monitoring digital communications when technical staff departs. 4. The National Faceless Appeal Centre grossly erred in dismissing the appeal in limine (at the threshold) without adjudicating on the merits of the case. By taking a hyper-technical view of the limitation period, the CIT(A) has denied the appellant a fair opportunity to be heard, which is contrary to the principle of "advancing substantial justice." 5. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, erred in relying on judicial precedents (like the SRF Ltd. case) involving "extraordinary delays" of over 1,000 days by large corporate entities, whereas the current case involves a much shorter delay by an individual, which deserves a more liberal and justice-oriented construction of "sufficient cause. 6. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, grossly erred in rejecting the application of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for this assessment year, whereas on the same issue of condoning the delay of 598 days, the appeal of the appellant was accepted by the Hon'ble CIT (A) for the assessment year 2014-15 directing the AO for fresh assessment regarding condonation of delay. 7. The appellant prays that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to condone the delay, set aside the order of the CIT (A), and either adjudicate the matter on merits or remand the case back to the file of the CIT (A) for a fresh decision on the actual tax grievances regarding the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144. 8. That the appellant craves to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.6103/Del/2026 are as under : 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred both in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal in limine on the technical ground of delay, completely shutting out a decision on merits. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the procedural delay of 132 days. He failed to appreciate that the delay was supported by "sufficient cause" and circumstances entirely beyond the control of the Appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to objectively evaluate the facts. The erstwhile Accounts Manager (Mr. Niranjan Kumar Singh) left his job abruptly in September 2024 without handing over the portal login credentials or alerting the Appellant to incoming statutory communications. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred by disregarding the landmark legal maxim that technicalities should not supersede substantial justice. He misapplied the liberal construction framework laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the harsh and uncalled-for penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, demanding a sum of 8,92,331/-. 6. The Appellant prays that the procedural delay of 132 days be condoned in the interest of justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) should be set aside, and the penalty of 8,92,331/- be completely deleted or restored to the file for a fresh adjudication on merits.”

At the outset, ld. Departmental Representative in ITA No.6102/Del/2026 stated that AO has passed an ex parte order. Further, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 285 days in the quantum appeal and passed an order under section 250 of the Act on 20.03.2026.

Further, ld. Department Representative in ITA No.6103/Del/2026 stated that the appeal in penalty order is delayed by 132 days and ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine under section 250 of the Act on 23.03.2026. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) passed orders under section 250 of the Act by dismissing the both the quantum as well as penalty appeal of the assessee without considering the reasons of delay in filing of appeal by the assessee. Following the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court's in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) mandating to render substantial justice on merits rather than scuttling a case on technical or procedural grounds like time-bars, and cconsidering the reasons filed by the assessee, we condone the delay and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit documents/evidence as required by the CIT(A). Both the appeal of the assessee is decided in aforesaid terms. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA 6102 and 6103/Del/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-Sep-2026