Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual farmer, failed to file his income tax return for AY 2015-16. After reassessment, additions were made. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 143-day delay. The assessee argued illiteracy and reliance on counsel for the delay. The Tribunal considered written submissions and departmental arguments.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without condoning it. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, and meritorious matters should not be dismissed at the threshold due to non-deliberate delay. Therefore, the appeal should be decided on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without considering the merits, especially in light of the assessee's circumstances and judicial precedents on condoning delay for substantial justice.
Sections Cited
148A(d), 148, 143(2), 142(1), 147, 144B, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the name of the assessee was called. However, written submission has been filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is being decided on the basis of written submission filed by the assessee and after hearing the Ld. DR.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 143 days in filing of the same.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for assessment year 2015-16. Information was in possession of the department that the assessee had made Time Deposit to the tune of Rs.34,00,000/- and cash deposits to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account held with M/s. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited during the financial year 2014-15 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. The case of the assessee was reopened after passing an order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 19.04.2022 declaring total income of Rs.73,450/-. The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 143(2) and served on the assessee. Thereafter he issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee made part compliance. Rejecting the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and Rs.76,00,767/- on account of undisclosed long term capital gain and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.96,74,217/- in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Since there was a delay of 143 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The assessee in his written submission has submitted that he is an individual farmer residing in a rural area and completely illiterate. He does not understand income tax law and cannot read even Marathi, his vernacular language. Further, the land belonged to his father which was compulsorily acquired by the government through the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation and cheque for acquisition were issued in the name of the father and the amount was credited to his father’s bank account. However, the Assessing Officer has erroneously presumed that the land belonged to the assessee and wrongly taxed the capital gains of Rs.76,00,767/- in the hands of the assessee though he was neither the owner nor the recipient of compensation. So far as the cash deposited of Rs.20 lakhs is concerned, the same was received from his father out of land acquisition compensation. He submitted in his written submission that despite all these facts mentioned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the fact that the assessee is an illiterate person coming from rural background and was completely dependent on his Counsel for filing and follow up procedure of the appeal. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have dismissed the appeal on account of delay and should have decided the appeal on merit by condoning the delay. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit.
The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.
We have considered the written submission filed by the assessee, heard the Ld. DR, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal by 143 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. It is the submission of the assessee that in view of various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have decided the issue on merit since the issues are decided in favour of the assessee by the various decisions.
We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 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) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make her 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 10th April, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 10th April, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Digitally signed by Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.04.10 18:14:04 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:
1. 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.