DILAWAR SINGH,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA

Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical and the appeals were heard together, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

We shall firstly deal with the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1143/Chd/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 wherein assessee has raised the following grounds:

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was framed under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessment proceedings ex parte and assessed the income of the assessee

Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the application for condonation of delay and the submissions of the assessee, observed that the notices issued by the Department had been duly served through the registered e- mail address of the assessee and that the explanation offered by the assessee was not supported by any convincing evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period and accordingly rejected the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was submitted that the assessee is a small agriculturist and was not properly aware of the faceless assessment and appellate procedures. It was further submitted that the assessment itself had been framed ex parte without effective participation of the assessee and that substantial additions have been made without examination of the relevant facts and evidences. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and that if the delay is not condoned, irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to him. It was therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may 4 be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and that the notices were duly served through the registered e-mail address. It was accordingly submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed solely on account of delay in filing the appeal and the issues involved in the assessment order have not been examined on merits. We further note that the assessment itself has been framed ex parte under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act.

1 It is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is required to be adopted so as to advance substantial justice. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in the statute should receive a pragmatic and justice-oriented interpretation. Ordinarily, no litigant stands to gain by filing an appeal belatedly and refusal to condone the delay may result in denial of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

2 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation furnished by the assessee, the fact that the assessment has been framed ex parte and further considering that the issues involved have not been examined on merits either by the Assessing Officer after participation of the assessee or by the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that the ends of substantial justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee to substantiate his case.

3 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned. The impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. Further, considering the peculiar facts of the case and in 5 order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is also set aside and the entire matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in accordance with law.

4 The Assessing Officer shall afford reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall extend full cooperation and shall furnish all documentary evidences, books of account, explanations and details as may be called for by the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall also be at liberty to raise all factual and legal submissions available to him under the provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law after duly considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee.

5 Before parting, considering the larger public interest and environmental concerns, we further direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards plantation of trees of Indian origin having a minimum height of four feet as a pre-condition for setting aside the orders of the authorities below and restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The amount shall be deposited with JAN VIKAS SHIKSHA SAMITI TRUST (PAN No. AACTJ8160E), House No.1577, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh, an NGO carrying out plantation work on the riverbank of the Yamuna near Yamunanagar (Haryana). The plantation activity shall be undertaken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

6 The assessee shall submit documentary evidence regarding such plantation, including photographs and a certificate from the concerned local authority/nursery, before the Assessing Officer as well as before the