Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2015-16. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 after information about sale and purchase of property was received. The assessment was completed ex parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was due to sufficient cause. The first appellate authority should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits.
Sections Cited
139(1), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM
O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order date 05.09.2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015- 16.
The sole grievance of the assessee in the appeal is with regard to dismissal of its appeal in limine on the ground of delay.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received system generated information indicating that in the year under consideration, the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.2,04,47,000/- and also purchased a property for Rs.60 the A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. As alleged by the A.O., the assessee did not comply with any of the statutory notices. Hence, in absence of any response from assessee’s side, the A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte, to the best of his judgement. While doing so, he added back the sale consideration of Rs.2,04,47,000/- as well as the amount paid by the assessee towards purchase of property amounting to Rs.60 lacs. Ultimately, the total income was determined at Rs.2,64,47,000/-.
Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. However, there was delay of 123 days in filing the appeal. Though, the assessee explained the cause of delay, however, it did not found favour with learned first appellate authority. Ultimately, he dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without condoning delay.
Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee went through serious personal problems during the period, which resulted in belated filing of appeal before first appellate authority. Drawing our attention to the Affidavit of the assessee, he submitted that there was serious health issues relating to both the assessee and her husband. In support of such contention, the assessee furnished documentary evidences.
Having considered rival submissions and gone through the contents of the Affidavit and other relevant materials on record, we are of the view that there was learned first appellate authority. We must observe, by not filing the appeal in time, the assessee would not have gained any benefit. Rather, the assessee had put herself at risk of the appeal not getting decided on merits and the sword of the addition made and demand created hanging on her head. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that learned first appellate authority should not have allowed himself to be influenced by technicalities. Rather, he should have done well to condone the delay and decided the appeal on merits. In view of the afore-said, we restore the matter back to the file of learned first appellate authority with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Billaiya) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 28.02.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,