HARJINDER SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO,WARD-1, PANIPAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, under Section 147 read with section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 20.02.2023 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 Harjinder Singh v. ITO A.Y. 2018-19
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. As per office report there is delay of 64 days in filing of appeal before the ITAT. The assessee has filed condonation application, supported by affidavit of one Shri Randeep Singh, Advocate, AR of the assessee. Considering the averments made in the condonation application for the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2018-19 the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 4,35,400/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on receipt of information that assessee had bogus purchases of Rs. 17,31,974/-, the case was reopened. In reassessment proceedings the AO completed the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 21,67,374/- by adding Rs. 17,31,974/- on account of disallowance of bogus purchases to the income returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who by and under impugned order dated 05.08.2024 dismissed the appeal, being barred by limitation, inter alia, by observing as under:
“3. It is clear from the above that the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 was made on 20.02.2023 which got served upon the appellant on 20.02.2023 but the 3
Harjinder Singh v. ITO
A.Y. 2018-19
appeal was filed on 09.04.2024 i.e. beyond prescribed time of 30 days, whereas, the appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days as provided vide section 249(2) on receipt of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. The appellant has stated reason for late filing due to illness and death of the brother of counsel. However, the appellant has not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim. Further, it is pertinent to mention here the fact that delay in filing appeal is of more than 1 year. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is without any substance in it. The appellant was required to file appeal within 30 days of the receipt of demand notice. However, the appellant has not done so. Hence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and therefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the specified period. Hence, since, appeal was not filed within prescribed time as provided in the section 249(2) of the IT Act, the same is not admitted.”
Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that in this case during assessment proceedings there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee and the assessment was completed ex parte, qua the assessee and the appeal preferred by the assessee before the Ld. First Appellate Authority was barred by limitation and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal. 6. It is revealed from the record that before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had filed condonation application explaining the delay in filing of the appeal. However, the same was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A), resulting into dismissal of appeal being barred by limitation. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the 4 Harjinder Singh v. ITO A.Y. 2018-19
present case this Bench deems it fit and proper to condone the delay having regard to the content of the application made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).
Further, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice the issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh, upon granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. It is also made clear that in the event the assessee does not cooperate with the Ld. AO, the said authority would be at liberty to pass orders strictly in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
7. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 17.4.2025. (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
*MP*