Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 146 days. The delay was attributed to the daughter's divorce proceedings, the assessee's medical issues, and mental instability. The CIT(A) rejected the delay condonation application and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee's grounds of appeal included not condoning the delay, not providing an opportunity to be heard, and affirmation of a high-pitched and incorrect assessment.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided as sufficient and reasonable. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the merits of the case, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(1), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH,
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- Present appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act dated 18.03.2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 framed by NFAC, Delhi which is arising out of assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 17.03.2023 framed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 02 days in filing the appeal. Reason for the same is stated to be medical emergency with the appellant’s Counsel CA Sarvesh Toshniwal. We find it to be reasonable cause and accordingly condone the delay of 2 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
Ground 1-Ld CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay of 146 days for filing the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and not attributing the assessee's condition to be 'Sufficient cause' for delay condonation. Ground 2- The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing the appellant an opportunity of being heard before rejecting the application for condonation of delay and thereby disregarding the principles of natural justice in making a fair judgement. Ground 3-The Ld CIT(A)'s rejection of delay condonation has led to affirmation of a hi-pitch assessment, which is time barred and invalid as per law. Ground 4 The Ld CIT(A)'s rejection of delay condonation has led to the affirmation of an incorrect addition as unexplained income of Rs. 40,23,500/- in Bank of Maharashtra (Shivaji Nagar Branch Pune) where the appellant does not even have an account in that branch. Ground 5 The Ld CIT(A)'s rejection of delay condonation has led to the affirmation of an incorrect addition as unexplained income of Rs. 40,91,000/- in Bank of Maharashtra (Jayakhede Branch) since it is an agricultural income and the appellant has documentary evidence for the same. Ground 6- The Ld CIT(A)'s rejection of delay condonation has led to the affirmation of incorrect treatment of cash deposit by the Ld Assessment Unit, where only Cash Deposit have been considered without deducting the Cash Withdrawals from the same bank account. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal at any time before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Appeals) to decide this appeal according to law and on merits of the case.
Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal of which grounds No. 4, 5 & 6 are against the addition of Rs. 81,41,700/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and ground No. 1 to 3 raised against the delay of 146 days in filing of appeal not condoned by Ld. CIT(A).
5. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee failed to appear before the assessment unit resulting into the best judgement assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Further the delay of 146 days occurred in filing of the appeal on account of the divorce proceedings of the appellant’s daughter, medical problems faced by the appellant and also the appellant was not stable mentally and physically to respond to the notices issued to him. He prayed for remitting back the issues to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for furnishing adjudication and denovo assessment.
On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of both the lower authorities.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an individual and claimed to be an Agriculturist having agricultural income from the land situated at Jaikheda, Taluka-Baaglaan, District-Nashik. Based on the information above cash deposits of Rs. 81,41,700/- and other contractual receipts, notices u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 issued and served upon the assessee followed by valid notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Inspite of being provided sufficient opportunity assessee failed to appear resulting into addition of Rs. 81,41,700/- The assessee was required to file the appeal within 30 days of receiving the assessment order but there was a delay of 146 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Though the assessee submitted the reasons giving rise to the delay but Ld. CIT(A) did not took the liberal and sympathetic view and dismissed the appeal in limine though dealing with the merits of the case.
Before us the assessee with the support of the evidence, medical certificate, Court Orders of daughter’s divorce proceedings and other details provided in the Paper Book running into 72 pages has successfully demonstrated that sufficient and reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) in the prescribed time limit and referring to various documents it is claimed that source of alleged cash deposits is from sale of agricultural produce and is duly supported by the 7/12 extract of agricultural land. We therefore in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471Supreme Court (SC) & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) deem it fit to take a liberal and sympathetic approach and condone the delay of 146 days occurred in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Further as Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case we remit back all the issues raised on merits in the grounds of appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to decide in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. 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 on merits are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2025.