Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT after a delay, having faced a delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to circumstances arising from COVID-19 restrictions and the subsequent process of finding a tax consultant. The CIT(A) had dismissed these appeals in limine.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT, finding sufficient cause. It noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case and decided to restore the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was supported by a reasonable cause, and whether the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeals on merits instead of dismissing them in limine.
Sections Cited
147, 271(1)(c), 250(6)
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 “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER BENCH :
The captioned five appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2013-14 to 2015-16 are against the separate orders of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC arising out of respective assessment/penalty orders.
Registry has informed that there is delay in filing the appeals to 127/PUN/2025. Assessee has filed separate Affidavit for condonation of delay in each appeal explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the Affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore in light of 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 in filing of the appeals before this Tribunal vide to 127/PUN/2025 and admit the appeals for adjudication.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all the instant five appeals ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals in limine on account of delay in filing the appeals before ld.CIT(A). The common reason stated for the said delay is mentioned in the Affidavit placed at pages 2 to 4 of the paper book. It has been stated that assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment orders in March 2023 when the assessee was asked to pay the Tax Demand and Penalties. He submitted that assessment orders were passed during covid-19 restrictions and the satisfaction for initiating levying penalty proceedings were also during the covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. He further submitted that after taking note of the passing of the assessment order assessee had to search for Tax Consultants for filing the appeals and in this process considerable time elapsed giving rise to the delay in filing of the appeals before ld.CIT(A). He therefore humbly prayed that in the interest of natural justice, the issues raised in the instant five appeals relating to the additions made in the assessment orders framed for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 as well as levy of penalties levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Yrs.
2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 may please be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.
On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities but was fair enough in not strongly opposing the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and subjected to re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act on account of the information about deposit of cash in his bank account and assessments for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 dated 29.03.2022 framed during covid-19 pandemic period restrictions. We further notice that the penalty proceedings also initiated in assessee’s case and penalty orders u/s.271(1)(c) were framed for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015- 16. Against all these orders, assessee preferred appeals before ld.CIT(A) but for the reasons stated hereinabove and mentioned in the Affidavit filed by the assessee in the paper book running into 58 pages, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee in filing the appeals within the stipulated time. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeals on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay).
We therefore in the light of the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances in the instant appeals and the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite documents/evidences. In view thereof, all the issues raised in the instant appeals are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is hereby directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 25th day of September, 2025.