Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals with a delay of 268 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, including lack of awareness of orders and IT portal issues. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days for the appeal before it, noting the circumstances and the Supreme Court's liberal approach. It also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits and remitted both the quantum addition and penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and CIT(A) warrants condonation; and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 43CA, 142(1), 249(3), 251(2), 270A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada Ingale Revenue by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of hearing : 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER These two appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and are directed against the separate orders dated 20.06.2024 and 12.06.2024 passed by Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Jaipur/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act"] which in turn are arising out of the respective Assessment/Penalty orders.
2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 268 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed Condonation application explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below:
“1. That the appellant is engaged in the business of land and building development under the proprietorship concern "Ranjeet Developers and has filed the appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2019 and thereafter the said appeal was dismissed by the and 1369/PUN/2025 Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre under section 250 of the Act on 12.06.2024.
That there is a delay of approximately 8 months in filing the appeal against the order U/Sec. 250 of the Act before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.
3. That the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay in filing the original appeal against the assessment order dated 23.12.2019. The said CIT(A) order was passed on 20.06.2024.
That the appellant was unaware of the passing of the said CIT(A) order, as no notice of hearing or order was received on any active email or postal address. The email ID registered on the income-tax portal and Form 35 belonged to a former accountant who had left the organization without handing over control communication access. ог 5. That the appellant came to know about the CIT(A) order only upon receipt of a demand recovery notice from the department in February 2025, whereafter steps were taken immediately to retrieve the order, consult legal counsel, and file this appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
6. That the appellant has filed a detailed affidavit explaining the entire sequence of events and the reasons for delay, which is annexed hereto and may be read as part of this petition.
That the appellant humbly submits that the delay is bona fide and the appeal involves substantial questions of law and fact, which deserve to be adjudicated on merits in the interest of justice.
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that judicial forums should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay where the explanation is bona fide and no malafide is alleged. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to: a. Condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal; b. Admit and hear the appeal on merits; or alternatively, sent to CIT(A) and c. Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
Ld. Departmental Representative opposed the contentions made by the assessee. and 1369/PUN/2025 Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire 4. After hearing both the sides and considering the averments made by the assessee stating the reasons which led to delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the time limit specified under the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 268 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication.
Brief facts as emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of development of land and building. Income of Rs.40,80,990/- declared in the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 filed on 02.02.2018. Case selected for scrutiny followed by statutory notices u/s.143(3)/142(1) of the Act. In response to the notices, assessee filed the reply along with supporting details. During the course of proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee sold Flats/Plots on various dates wherein Agreement value of the Flats/plots is less than the value adopted the State Govt for the purpose of stamp duty. On due consideration of the reply filed by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer invoking section 43CA of the Act disallowed Rs.28,31,073/- being the difference of Market Value and the Agreement Value, details of which are shown in page 2 and 3 of the Assessment Order. Ld. Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.66,640/- on account of delayed payment of PF/ESIC.
7. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A) on the given dates of and 1369/PUN/2025 Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire hearing. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by observing as under :
“5. Decision: The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is inordinate delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason is given by the appellant. The appellant has stated that he could not file the appeal as he was not in a mental condition to focus on these issues due to Covid. Here, it may be seen that the assessment order in the case of the appellant was passed on 23.12.2019 whereas, the Covid Pandemic and lockdown was enforced from mid-March 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting form 15th March 2020 and it is noted that the appellants case does not fall within the said time period. The appellant has not given any sufficient reason to justify the delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order. It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between the cases where there is sufficient reason and where the appellant has not been able to justify the delay. The delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no"sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right. For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”
8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the exparte order passed by ld.CIT(A) contending that ld.CIT(A) failed to address the issue arising from the impugned order as per Explanation to section 251(2) of the Act and also erred in not and 1369/PUN/2025 Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire adopting a rational and pragmatic approach while adjudicating the condonation of delay.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. On perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the assessment order in the instant case has been passed on 23.12.2019 and the assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 27.01.2022. During the period from March, 2020 till May 2022, entire nation has witnessed covid-19 pandemic issue and there were restrictions on movement of general public and considering the difficulties faced by the litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). The minor delay if any after exclusion of covid- 19 pandemic outbreak period would be hardly a month and the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Adopting a justice oriented approach, the delay before ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned.
On perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. ld.CIT(A) for the year under consideration, it is evident that there was no participation from the side of assessee and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing on merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. The settled position of law mandates the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. and 1369/PUN/2025 Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire 11. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that the issues on merit deserves to be remitted back to the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. relates to penalty appeal. Ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act for misrepresentation or suppression of facts and eventually levied penalty of Rs.9,04,085/- @200% of the tax payable. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution by observing as under :
“2. Aggrieved with the order issued by the AO, the appellant has filed present appeal on 06.05.2022. In the course of appellate proceedings, it is seen that the appellant was issued and served various notices u/s 250 of the Act from this office to present his contentions and any documents supporting them. The said notices were issued right from 2022 through till 2024 and all of them (3 in number) remain un-complied with. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFaC) also in November, 2022 enabled communication window to facilitate filing of submissions by the appellant but to no avail.
3. In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal because there has been no response as yet. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.” and 1369/PUN/2025 Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire 13. A perusal of above finding also indicates that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. However, since the issues raised in the quantum addition are remitted back, the appeal relating to penalty levied u/s.270A raised in being consequential is also remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of March, 2026.