JASH ARORA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 27(1), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for the assessment year under consideration, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

The principal grievance of the assessee is against the action of the learned CIT(A) in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal and, consequently, dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raised on merits.

Briefly stated, the assessee had challenged the assessment proceedings by filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Since the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, the assessee sought condonation of delay by explaining that it was bona fide pursuing the writ remedy before the Hon’ble High Court. The learned CIT(A), however, did not accept the explanation and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation without deciding the issues arising from the assessment order on merits.

Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the assessee. The assessee was bona fide pursuing its remedy before the Hon’ble High Court and, therefore, the time spent in such proceedings constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative also raised certain legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and submitted that these grounds go to the root of the assessment proceedings.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the assessee had challenged the assessment proceedings by filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. The conduct of the assessee, therefore, demonstrates that it was pursuing a legal remedy against the assessment and had not abandoned its right to challenge the same. Considering the fact that the assessee was bona fide pursuing the writ proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court, the learned CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal view, condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The explanation furnished by the assessee

During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative also raised certain grounds challenging the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer. However, the relevant facts necessary for adjudicating these jurisdictional grounds are not emanating from either the assessment order or the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). In these circumstances, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of such grounds at this stage.

In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The assessee shall be at liberty to raise all factual as well as legal grounds, including the grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, and to place the relevant supporting material on record. The learned CIT(A) shall consider and adjudicate all such grounds in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2026.