RAKESH SONI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

The Learned CIT (A) erred in applying judicial precedents mechanically and in a hyper- technical manner, without considering that the expression "sufficient cause" under section 249(3) of the Act must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, particularly when the appellant has filed a detailed condonation petition, affidavit, and supporting evidences explaining the bona fide reasons which prevented the appellant from filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

The Learned CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merits, thereby failing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under section 250 of the Act.

The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional nor due to negligence, but occurred owing to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant.

The Learned CIT (A) failed to consider that the appellant had a strong prima facie case on merits, and dismissal of the appeal solely on technical grounds has resulted in irreparable hardship to the appellant.

The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that substantial taxes in respect of the impugned transaction had already been recovered and paid to the credit of the Central Government through deduction of tax at source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 2,60,027/-. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade taxes and that levy of penalty under section 270A, despite substantial tax already having been collected through TDS mechanism, is arbitrary, excessive, and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts, equity and principles of natural justice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was amongst the non-filers of the return, but the Revenue was in possession of certain information, i.e. Purchase of immovable property for Rs. 1, 00, 10, 000/-, Land of Rs. 70 Lacs, Sale of motor vehicle amounting to Rs. 10, 02,700/- and sale of immovable property for Rs. 62.50 Lacs per person, i.e. for Rs. 2.5 Cr. to four people. Based on the information, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued 25.03.2022. In response to the same, no return u/s. 148 of the Act was filed by the assessee. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1, 53, 13,000/- and simultaneously penalty u/s. 270A of the Act was also initiated for under reporting of the Income. Order of penalty was also finalized after due opportunity to the assessee vide order dated: 17.09.2023.

The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) on 19.03.2026, i.e. late by 884 days from the time prescribed in section 249 of the Act. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine as the same was found to be filed with inordinate delay and the reasons assigned by the assessee are not found to be reasonable within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved with the same, preferred the present appeal before us.

We have gone through the orders of the authorities below and submissions of the assessee along with grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee was non-compliant before the AO and the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT (A) was also filed with a delay of 884 days. Not only the penalty proceedings before the AO, but also the quantum assessment was also finalized u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, i.e. on ex-parte basis. Here it is pertinent to mention that the assessee has not challenged the quantum assessment proceedings before any forum, as neither any evidence nor any ground in this respect has been taken before the First appellate authority as well as before us. Meaning thereby, the appeal of the assessee even admitted will be decided on technical grounds, if any, and not on the merits of the case as there is no appeal filed against the quantum addition. Page 3 of 5

We are also satisfied with the contention of the assessee that this delay in filing the appeal will certainly not be for the benefit of the assessee and rather he is at a disadvantageous position because of this delay. Here, we are of the considered opinion that benefit of doubt should have been given to the assessee, as the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and ought to have to deal with substantial orders instead of ex-parte orders, as in this case. In view of the above, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for de-novo consideration after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, keeping in view the provisions of section 282 of the Act. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and cooperative enough this time while participating before the AO and come forward with legitimate evidence/explanations etc. without any delay or seeking any adjournment. This inordinate delay of the assessee is condoned subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and the receipt of the same is to be produced before the registry for verification within 15 days of receipt of this order.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced on the 24th day of July-2026 in Chennai.