Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file his income tax return for AY 2015-16. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but it was dismissed due to a delay of 142 days. The assessee is an individual and a salaried employee, whose wife sold a property and deposited the sale proceeds in a joint account with the assessee. The assessee claimed ignorance of the transaction due to frequent travel.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when there is a non-deliberate delay. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned to decide the appeal on merits, considering the substantial justice aspect.
Sections Cited
148A, 148, 142(1), 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 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 order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal due to delay in filing of the appeal by 142 days.
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. An order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 07.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022. Since the assessee did not make any compliance to the various statutory notices issued including the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.11.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.62,71,200/-.
Since there was a delay in filing of the appeal by 142 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal treating the same as not maintainable.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee. His wife had received certain property being ownership residential premises at Gajanan Plaza, Ward No.74, Takli Seem, Nagpur in the year 2004 which was sold by her on 23.01.2014 to Mukesh Himatlal Thakar for a consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- as per agreement dated 23.01.2014. The above amount was deposited in the bank account which was jointly held with her husband i.e. the assessee in the instant case. He submitted that since the assessee was neither a party to the sale nor a party to the purchase, therefore, he was not aware of the transaction. Further, due to frequent travel on account of job he could not file his original return in time. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and he should have decided the appeal on merit.
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 orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 142 days, he dismissed the same as not maintainable. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the entire addition is not maintainable since the bank deposits in question are out of sale proceeds of the property belonging to the spouse of the assessee and bank account is a joint bank account. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.
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), we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th October, 2025.