Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2015-16. A re-assessment proceeding was initiated u/s 148 and later concluded u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 as a best judgment assessment due to non-compliance, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,13,34,600/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 268 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's contention that notice was not properly served and the period of delay was not intentional. However, since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the substantive issues, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned? Whether the CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the substantive issues raised in the appeal?
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250, 144
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 BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is against the order dated 18.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 emanating from Assessment Order dated 25.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act.
Though the assessee has raised as many as 10 Grounds of appeal but one of the grievance is that ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 268 days and dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation. He submitted that the assessment order has been passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act and no notice was served on the assessee on the e- mail registered on the ITBA portal. Even the assessment order also was not served on the portal also and shown with e-mail id as blank which indicates that no notice has been issued on the income-tax portal. Assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment order only on receiving the demand notice dated 23.10.2024. Even the physical address mentioned in the assessment order also is vague. These reasons gave rise to the delay of 268 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). He submitted that since the assessee had reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) the same deserves to be condoned in light of the settled judicial precedents and the issues raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
3. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. Based on the information about sale of immovable property, ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act followed by carrying out of the re-assessment proceedings. However, due to non compliance by the assessee ld. AO concluded the re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and passed the best judgment assessment making addition of Rs.1,13,34,600/-. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 18.11.2024 and there was delay of 268 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay.
On perusal of Form No.35 and other details placed by the assessee in the paper book, we find that the assessee was not served with valid notice of hearing as well as passing of the assessment order on the registered e-mail id. Assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment order only after receiving the demand notice dated 24.10.2024. We notice that in this era of serving of notice through e-mail id and the information available on the income-tax portal in many cases assessees are not well versed with this new technical advancement and sometimes e-mails received from the income-tax departments goes unnoticed. In the instant case, assessee has stated that in place of e-mail mentioned on the income tax portal for serving the notice/assessment order the column is blank and the e-mail id registered on the income tax portal of the assessee is not mentioned in the communication of sending the assessment order. Considering all these aspects and also observing that the delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) is not intentional and assessee would not have gained by delaying the filing. We therefore taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 268 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). However, since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the issues raised in Form No.35, we hereby remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried out after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of October, 2025.