Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file her return of income and was found to have made significant financial transactions, including purchasing immovable property worth Rs. 1.56 crore. Her case was reopened under Section 147, leading the Assessing Officer to make an addition under Section 69 and determine her total income at Rs. 1,57,85,123/-. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a four-month delay in filing, rejecting her explanation regarding lack of technological proficiency and the inaction of her former tax practitioner.
Held
The Tribunal, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, set aside the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC's order. Citing Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay, it directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and readjudicate the appeal on its merits, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present her case and submit all necessary details. The assessee was instructed to cooperate without seeking adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of a four-month delay in filing, and whether such delay should be condoned in the interest of justice for a merits-based decision.
Sections Cited
139, 69, 147, 144, 144B, 194D, 194C, 194A, 194J, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG & SHRI R. K. PANDA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.05.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the appeal and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.1,56,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income u/s 139 of the Act. As per information available on record the assessee has made certain financial transactions, the details of which are as under:
Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened as per provisions of section 147 of the Act after taking approval of the competent authority. Since the assessee did not comply to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.03.2023, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,57,85,123/-.
Since there was delay in filing of the appeal by about 4 months before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before him. While doing so, he also rejected the contention of the assessee that she was not well versed in using technology due to which she could not file the appeal in time.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a lady and is not well versed in using technology. Further, the erstwhile tax practitioner had stopped visiting the IT portal on her behalf resulting in the delay. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.
The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He however, has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.
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. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,57,85,123/- on the ground that the assessee failed to file the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and also there is no evidence on record to explain the source for the investment in purchase of immovable property and non-disclosure of various receipts such as insurance commission, profit on contractual receipts, interest income and fees for technical and professional services etc. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to delay in filing of the appeal by about 4 months and the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for such delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was not well versed in using the technology due to which she could not file the appeal in time. Further, the erstwhile tax practitioner, who was looking after the tax matters has stopped visiting the IT portal for which the assessee could not come to know of any order passed by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is also his submission that in view of various decisions, a small delay of about 4 months in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and he should have adjudicated the appeal on merit.
We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) 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.”
Following the 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 are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the issue on merit. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the issue back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee and decide the appeal on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of hearing itself i.e. on 24th November, 2025.