Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a non-resident residing in Ireland, filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which dismissed her appeal in-limine due to a 374-day delay. The assessment itself was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act, treating sale consideration of property as taxable income. The delay was attributed to an office assistant mixing up papers during a premise shift, leading to the lapse being discovered when the assessee's bank account was frozen.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay, demonstrating sufficient cause as per Section 249(3) of the Act. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating the merits was found unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable under "sufficient cause" and whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal on limitation without considering the merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 249(3), 148, 144C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/11/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/11/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 24/01/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay of 374 days in filing the first appeal and dismissed the appeal in-limine, without entering into the merits of the issues raised. The assessee has challenged this dismissal.
The assessment in the present case was completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 12.12.2018, wherein the Ld. AO treated the entire sale consideration of a property as taxable income and raised a demand of Rs.45,17,840/-. The assessee, who resides abroad in Ireland, handed over the assessment order and related papers to her counsel in India in time. As explained in the detailed condonation petition, the papers were inadvertently mixed up with other files by the office assistant of the counsel and, during the shifting of the counsel’s office premises, the original papers were weeded out unintentionally. When the assessee’s bank account was later frozen, she contacted her counsel and the lapse was discovered. A request for a certified copy of the assessment order was then made to the AO on 12.02.2020, which was duly furnished, and the appeal was thereafter filed on 28.02.2020.
Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), declined the request for condonation of delay holding that the assessee failed to furnish a day-to-day explanation for the delay and proceeded to dismiss the appeal solely on limitation.
Aggrieved by the non-condonation and non-adjudication, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.
During the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay was fully explained, bona fide and neither deliberate nor intentional. It was emphasised that the assessee is a non-resident and had acted diligently by handing over the papers to her counsel. The subsequent misplacement of documents and the shifting of office premises were administrative lapses wholly beyond her control. Reference was made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil to contend that the expression “sufficient cause” requires a liberal, justice-oriented interpretation.
Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but fairly submitted that if the Tribunal finds the explanation acceptable, the matter may be restored for fresh adjudication.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The explanation furnished by the assessee is reasonable, consistent and supported by the surrounding circumstances, including the fact that she resides abroad and relied on her counsel for all procedural compliances. The events narrated in the condonation application were neither challenged nor disproved by the Department. There is nothing to indicate that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or intended to gain any advantage. In these circumstances, the assessee has satisfactorily demonstrated “sufficient cause” for the delay within the meaning of section 249(3), as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A strictly pedantic or hyper-technical approach, as adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), is not in consonance with the settled principles governing condonation of delay, nor conducive to the advancement of substantial justice.
7.1 We, therefore, hold that the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal at the threshold without adjudicating the merits, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7.2 Further, having regard to the fact that the assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and important jurisdictional issues have been raised by the assessee, and also considering that the assessee is a non- resident, We find it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the entire matter to the file of the AO. The AO shall re-examine the issues afresh, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present all relevant evidence including those relating to the cost of acquisition, service of notice under section 148, jurisdictional objections, and all other grounds raised. 7.3 The AO shall also strictly follow the procedure prescribed under section 144C of the Act, wherever applicable, keeping in view the assessee’s status as a non-resident and any consequential requirement of issuing a draft assessment order, providing the assessee a further opportunity before the Dispute Resolution Panel, and completing the assessment thereafter in accordance with law.
7.4 The assessee is directed to co-operate in the remand proceedings and furnish all relevant material as may be required for effective adjudication.
In view of the above, the delay stands condoned, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.