Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is an individual who did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and made additions based on financial transactions like salary, credit card payments, and interest income. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on delay without a proper hearing, and if the reassessment proceedings were valid.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B, 271(1)(c), 250, 148A, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
16.12.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17 dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay. filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.12.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming the penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. Information was available with the department that the assessee during the impugned assessment year had entered into the following financial transactions: Info Code Nature of Reasons Amount (Rs.) Transaction TDS-194A TDS Return – Other TDS Return – Other interest 35,739/- Interest TDS-192 Salary Received Salary Received (TDS Form 63,57,095/- 24Q, Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/-
The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal and others vide Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 order dated 04.05.2022, the Assessing Officer provided the information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessee on 31.05.2022 with a direction to submit his response. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.06.2022 was issued to the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to make his compliance. After considering the submissions made by the assessee from time to time, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.72,44,455/- wherein he made the following additions: a) Salary received from the employer during the year as per TDS details Rs.63,57,095/- b) Income from other sources being Credit card payment during the year Rs.8,51,621/- c) Interest received from HDFC Bank Rs.35,739/- Rs.72,44,455/- Total
4. Since there was a delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Lava International Ltd vs. CBDT in Civil Writ Petition No.8293/2024 order dated 30.05.2024 and held that the assessee has not given any sufficient reason which prevented him to file the appeal within the specified period.
5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:
1. For that, order u/s 250 of the IT Act dated 16.12.2025 as passed by the Ld CIT(A) NFAC is illegal and liable to be quashed.
2. For that, notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 29.06.2022 and order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 29.06.2022 on the approval of the Pr. CIT-4, Pune is invalid and without jurisdiction considering the fact, that the reopening of the Assessment is after three years from the end of the impugned Assessment year on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
3. For that the Assessment order as passed by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and void considering invalid notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
For that the notice issued u/s 148 without valid and proper approval u/s 151 of the Act. The 148 notice dated 29.06.2022 is void and illegal. As such the reassessment order on the basis invalid 148 notice is also invalid in the eye of law needs to be quashed.
For that, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified to dismiss the appeal of the Assessee on the ground of delay without providing any opportunity of hearing on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
For that, the additions are made by the Ld. A.O and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) not legal and proper on the facts and in the circumstances in the case.
6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was dated 23.05.2023 which was served on the assessee on the same day but the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 29.11.2025 thereby causing a delay in filing of the appeal. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee had explained the reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal which was due to the illness of the wife of the assessee who was hospitalized and was under medical care. Further, it was also explained before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC that the order was never served physically or through any electronic mode but was served on the e-mail id which was not in use. It was explained before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC that the assessee came to know regarding passing of the order only when the recovery proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer against the disputed demand. However, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without considering the above reasons given by the assessee dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence which could substantiate the claim of delay. According to him, the reasons given by the assessee are not sufficient which prevented him to file the appeal in time. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the order was served on an email ID which was not in use and the assessee came to know regarding passing of the order only when the recovery proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer against the disputed demand. It is also his submission that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case.
We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:
“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Since we have restored the quantum appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit, therefore, the issue of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also restored to his file for fresh adjudication along with the quantum appeal. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th March, 2026.