SHARAD MARUTI AWHALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(3), PUNE, PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 27.05.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 08.08.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

Registry has informed that there is delay of 647 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the Affidavit stated that the assessee is not well conversant with income-tax laws and with the e-filing portal and also is not able to search for Tax Consultant/Legal Professional for taking up the work of filing the appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. He also submitted that the delay is not intentional and that the assessee is carrying out regular business activities and also filing the return of income and that assessee has sufficient details to prove that the impugned addition is uncalled for. He therefore requested for condoning the delay. Ld. Departmental Representative opposed this request.

We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the averments made in the affidavit. Hon’ble courts in plethora of judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the appeal filed by the appellant with a delay was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow for the examination of the case on its merits. Having gone through the averments made in the affidavit and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 647 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

On merits of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with the merits of the case and therefore prayed for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A). Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose this request.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is aggrieved with the addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.16,27,335/- for A.Y. 2014-15 vide assessment order dated 08.08.2016. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 27.04.2018. The appeal was taken up by ld. NFAC almost after three years that too during covid-19 pandemic outbreak. We observe that first notice was issued on 25.12.2020 followed by two notices in the year 2023. Further, we notice that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case even though assessee has furnished details before the Assessing Officer.

Under these given facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to say that ld.CIT(A) shall examine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) holding that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.