Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals arose from separate orders passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15. There was a delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal due to lack of awareness and communication difficulties by the legal heir of the deceased assessee. The appeals were dismissed summarily by the CIT(A) for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal ex parte without disposing of the grounds on merits. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal ex parte without deciding the grounds on merits, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 115BBE, 143(3)
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.
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22/05/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/05/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: These three appeals by the assessee arise out of separate appellate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 26.12.2023, for the Assessment Years 2012–13, 2013–14, and 2014–15. As the issues are common and interconnected, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order. For convenience, for A.Y. 2014–15 is treated as the lead case.
At the outset, it is noted that there was a delay of more than 81 days in filing the appeal in and 580/Chd/2024 before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition supported by an affidavit explaining that the delay occurred on account of lack of awareness and communication difficulties, as the assessee is represented through the widow/legal heir of Late Sadiq Ali, and the proceedings were conducted under the faceless mechanism.
Considering the circumstances narrated in the petition, and taking into account that the impugned appellate orders were passed ex parte without adjudication on merits, we are satisfied that the reasons for the delay are bonafide and not deliberate or mala fide. It is a settled principle of law that technicalities should not come in the way of substantive justice.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987 AIR 1353], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that a liberal view should be taken in matters of condonation of delay where substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations.
Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.
The common issue in all these appeals relates to the validity and sustainability of additions made under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the cases of Late Sadiq Ali, represented by his legal heir, for respective years. The additions primarily relate to unexplained credit entries in various bank accounts, which the AO brought to tax under section 115BBE in absence of compliance.
The assessee challenged the said reassessment orders before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals summarily for non- compliance, without rendering any findings on the merits of the case, despite the fact that grounds challenging the jurisdiction as well as factual additions were duly raised.
It is a well-established law that the first appellate authority cannot dismiss the appeal ex parte without disposing of the grounds on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar 74 ITR 41 has clearly held that dismissal of an appeal by the CIT(A) for default without going into the merits is not justified.
In view of the above, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). We accordingly set aside the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all three assessment years and remand the matter to his file for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and actively cooperate in the proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the matter in accordance with law after considering the submissions and evidence that may be filed.
In the result, all three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/05/2025