Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed with a significant delay, with the assessee citing confusion and non-receipt of the appellate order as reasons. The assessee also faced an ex-parte decision from the CIT(A) in the past, which was later set aside by the ITAT and restored for fresh adjudication. The assessee has been facing additions due to a lack of proper explanation and compliance before the authorities below.
Held
The Tribunal noted that repeated remanding of matters is undesirable but found merit in restoring the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to unexplained additions. The Tribunal also cautioned that if the assessee fails to produce good evidence, the additions made by the AO may be confirmed.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the additions made by the authorities below are justified in light of the assessee's lack of explanation and compliance.
Sections Cited
249(3), 250, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case the ITAT registry has reported a delay of 325 days filing of the said appeal. The assessee has requested for condoning the said delay through a very long petition, which also contains arguments on factual issues. However, some relevant portions from the said petition deserve to be extracted as under: -
“That, the due date for filing Appeal before she Hon'ble ITAT was on 20th May, 2024, However, due to the above confusion and since the Appellate Order was not received by toe Appellant or his Counsel it was not possible for him to file she Appeal. As soon as the Appellant's Counsel came to know about the fact that Appellate Order has been passed the Appellant along with his counsel, consulted its present Counsel CA Neelesh Kumar Jain and we have consulted then to filed the Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Further, it is humbly submittal that the delay in submitting appeal is of 333 days may kindly be condoned since delay only due to the fact that appellant had no knowledge about the fact that Appellate Order has been passed and counsel was also under wrong impression and was not having any knowledge of toe Appellate Orderand there is no willful default m the part of the appellant in complying the statutory time limit of filing the appeal. The appeal may kindly be heard on merit. Your Hon. is empowered u/s 249(3) for condoning the delay if the delay is explained with sufficient reasons. It has been consistent view of theHon’ble Courts that a liberal construction of the provisions for condoning the delay should be made in order to advance substantial justice. In this regard, the appellant is bringing in your kind notice the ratio of Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court and other judicial precedents, which also support the case of the Appellant.”--------
This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), dated 31.03.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC.
On the last date of hearing and even on the previous date of hearing on 03.02.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, it is now decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of the Ld. DR. This case has an unusual adjudicating history which is clearly set out in para 4 of the impugned order as under: -
“4.0 In this case, the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed by the CIT(A) Ghaziabad vide order Appeal No. 117/2015-16/GZB dated 31.03.2017 on an ex-parte basis as there was no attendance on behalf of the appellant. Against this decision of CIT(A), Ghaziabad, the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘E’ New Delhi. The ITAT ‘Delhi Bench ‘E’ New Delhi for AY 2012-13 vide its order dated 29.11.2019 set aside the order of CIT(A) Ghaziabad and restored the matter back to the file of CIT(A) Ghaziabad with a direction to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the appellant is directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A).”
We are acutely conscious of the fact that repeated remanding back of the matters is not desirable under normal circumstances. However, in this case, we find that a number of additions have been made, which for want of proper explanation, have been adversely dealt with by the authorities below. The details of such additions are as under: - a. Unexplained capital Rs.7,50,000/- b. Unexplained loan Rs.12,71,062/- c. Unexplained bank loan Rs.26,00,000/- d. Commission paid Rs.9,50,000/- e. Consumable and salary expenses Rs.18,52,000/- f. Unexplained cash deposits in SB A/c Rs.29,71,200/- g. Unexplained investment in property Rs.37,18,000/-
The Ld. DR took us through the impugned order and pointed out that the assessee was not forthcoming with any cogent reason for explaining the impugned additions. It was argued by the Ld. DR that the authorities below had no option but to add the impugned amounts to the income of the assessee.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and we have also gone through the orders of authorities below. A careful perusal of the records before us shows that the assessee has not been making full compliance before the authorities below. It is felt that due to this reason only he is suffering with the impugned additions. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the interests of substantive justice, we deem it fit to restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order.
4.1 We hasten to add that in case the assessee does not produce good evidence in support of his claim, if required under Rule 46A of the I.T.
Rules, then the Ld. CIT(A) would be free to confirm the additions made by the Ld. AO.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2026