APPASO SAMPATRAO MANE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 143 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the said delay and dismissed the appeal observing that the assessee has failed to substantiate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time frame and has as such failed to explain the unreasonable delay of 143 days satisfactorily.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No.1:Ld CIT(A) erred in not condoning small delay and in not appreciating the sufficient cause.

1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that submission made before him whereby the underlying transaction (purchase of property) of Rs.56,03,725/-, was fully explained through housing loan documentation and banking records, and all tax compliance requirements including TDS under section 1941A were duly met, proving that there was no escapement of income.

2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that submission made before him whereby the underlying transaction related to payment through credit card of 3,08,995/-, was fully explained through banking records.

3 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO failed to appreciate that section 69 is a deeming fiction and need to strictly construed. When the requirements of section are not satisfied the addition cannot be made.

4 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO failed to appreciate that the appellant is NRI and does not have any income in India. He is employed at USA. As per law he is not required to maintain any books of accounts. In the circumstances the allegation of unrecorded investment in books fails. Otherwise also all sources are explained. The addition is bad in law. Ground No.4: Levy of tax @ 115BBE On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in levying tax at special rate U/s 115BBE. Ground No. 5 Initiation of penalty and levy of interest: On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No. 6 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." The assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal before the Tribunal which is as under : “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that keeping in view of the provisions of S. 149(1)(a) and S. 149 (1)(b), the Ld. AD erred in assuming the juri iction to reopen the assessment. The investment in property is of Rs Rs.56,03,725/- is met with by borrowing housing loan of Rs.44,82,980/- from HDFC Bank Ltd. Considering the fact, alleged escaped income falls below threshold of Rs 50 lacs. Reopening of the assessment is therefore invalid, bad in law and is liable to quashed.

The AR submitted the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not deliberate. The assessee has submitted all the relevant facts and details/documents before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, without considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine for delay in filing the appeal without deciding the issue(s) on merits. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an NRI residing in the USA since 2014. He did not access his registered email provided to PAN Database, after leaving India and he was not aware of the change of faceless regime as a procedure in the Income Tax Law. As soon as he came to know about the proceedings, he promptly and diligently demonstrated his bona fide intention to comply with Indian tax requirements as per the laws. The assessee therefore has a sufficient cause which he has explained/substantiated by filing an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC/AO to their satisfaction. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of either the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the Ld. AO as deemed fit by the Bench for adjudication afresh on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed the appeal without deciding the merits of the case for non-condonation of delay on the ground that the explanation provided by the assessee do not constitute a sufficient cause for such inordinate delay of 143 days in filing of appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. AR that the assessee has a strong case on merits and the delay was not intentional as it resulted due to the aforementioned reasons constituting the sufficient cause for such delay.

We find some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. 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 some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. 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: