Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee society's appeal was filed with a delay of 45 days due to non-receipt of notices on their operational email ID. The lower authorities had sustained additions due to non-appearance. The assessee claimed to have explanations for the sources of investment and cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 45 days, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y.2020-21 is directed against the order dated 10.09.2015 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 03.03.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 45 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Relevant contents of said affidavit reads as under:
“It may kindly be noted that all the notices issued regarding the appellate proceedings were sent on the non-operational email ID of the appellant (i.e., shree_aishwaryalaxmi@outlook.com). The said email ID was old ID of the appellant which was not in regular use. The staff of the appellant used to check the email ID once in 2-3 months to check if any important emails have wrongly been sent on that ID. As clarified above, the notices as well as appellate order were sent by the department on this email ID. Further, it may not be out of place to mention that five back-to-back hearing notices have been issued within a short span of just two months. The first hearing notice was issued on 19.06.2025 and 5th (last) notice was issued on 19.08.2025. Thus, the appellant society was not aware about the issue of hearing notices or the issue of appellate order. This is the reason the appellant society was unable to respond to appeal notices and furnish the supporting documents. Recently, when the bank account of the appellant was seized, it came to know about all the notices issued and the order passed by the Ld. NFAC, Delhi. The appellant immediately informed the tax consultant to take the necessary action. It is in view of the above-mentioned facts that there is delay of approx. 65 days in filing of appeal before Hon. ITAT. 3] Now, when the appellant got to know about the issue of appellate order u/s. 250 of the Act, it has immediately filed a further appeal after a delay of approx.65 days. The delay was purely on account of genuine difficulty mentioned above. There was no malafide intention in delayed filing of appeal. The appellant submits that there is a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit and hence, the appellant requests for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of the above, it is humble prayer before the Hon. Bench to kindly condone the delay and grant an opportunity of being heard on merits.”
On due consideration of the averments made by the assessee and also adopting justice oriented approach, I find that the delay is not deliberate and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 45 days before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non-appearance before both the lower authorities the impugned addition has been sustained. He further submitted assessee has complete details to explain the source of making investment in Fixed Deposit of Rs.15.00 lakh and secondly details of cash deposits duly recorded in the books of account are available and that ld. Assessing Officer wrongly estimated income @15% of the turnover. He therefore prayed for an opportunity to go before the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer so as to prove that impugned addition is not called for.
On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its Members. It is claimed that source of cash and time deposits are out of the deposits from the Members. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that all the notices of hearing were issued within two months and assessee sought adjournment couple of occasions. It has been further claimed vide grounds of appeal that assessee was in the process of compilation of documents and in the meanwhile without giving proper opportunity, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.
Considering the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and also considering the details furnished in the paper book running into 158 pages and observing that the assessee has prima-facie case to explain the source of investment required for making Fixed Deposits as well as source of cash received during the year, I deem it appropriate to remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceeding shall provide reasonable opportunity to the asseseee and consider the documents/evidences to be filed by the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of March, 2026.