Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order of NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The original assessment was completed with an addition of Rs. 1,50,92,230/- as unexplained cash credit. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a significant delay, attributed to the ill health of the Chartered Accountant.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present their case on merits due to the dismissal on grounds of limitation. The Tribunal cited case law suggesting that condoning delay can lead to a decision on merits, while rejecting it can defeat justice.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) should be admitted for adjudication on merits despite the delay, considering the reasons provided for the delay. Whether the penalty appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 139(1), 148, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM
O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM Instant group of appeal of the assessee is preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of orders 13/06/2025 & 17/06/2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”) passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date
The assessee had not filed the return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act. The return was filed in response to notice U/s 148 of the Act. The assessment was completed with addition of Rs.1,50,92,230/- as unexplained cash credit. Being aggrieved, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 254 days. The Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee, being further aggrieved, has filed the present appeal before us.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 279 days. The explanation was filed by the assessee before the 1st Appellate Authority which reproduced as below:- "It is humbly submitted that this prayer with a request for condonation of delayfor an extension of time to file this appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellant submits that there is a delay of 311 days in preferring the above-mentioned Appeal.
615/Coch/2025 Mr. Anil The Appellant submits that the cause for the above-mentioned delay in filing the appeal is due to the ill health of the Chartered Accountant with whom the appellant had entrusted all the documents for filing the appeal. The same has caused undue hardship to the appellant to find another Chartered Accountant and handing over of al/ documents related to filing the appeal. The Appellant further submits that there have been no wilful delays or latches on its part for preferring an Appeal. The Appellant is of the bonafide belief that the impugned order issued by the Respondent is liable to be set aside for the grounds stated in the appeal docket submitted herewith. It is humbly prayed that based upon the totality of the circumstances mentioned above, the learned CIT(Appeals) may be pleased to consider the prayer of the appellant in granting the condonation for delay of 311 days in appearing before your learned self forj ustice and equity. It is a trite position of law, crystallized by the Hon'b/e Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land acquisition Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) that refusal 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. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay) was pleased to condone a delay of 2984 days when the Assessee showed bonafide reasons for not preferring the Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.” The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the appeals on the ground of limitation, without examining the submissions of the assessee on merits. In our considered view, reasonable opportunity was denied to the assessee for advancing his claim. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo on the issue of limitation, by adopting a lenient approach. The Ld. DR argued but had not made any strong objection against the decision of the bench.
615/Coch/2025 Mr. Anil The assessee is directed to file an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay with sufficient cause. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to add, the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the appellate order is passed. At the same time, the assessee is expected to be diligent and co-operative in the set-aside proceedings to facilitate expeditious disposal of the appeal. ITA No. 615/Coch/2025
This appeal pertain to penalty order under section 271AAC(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.11,65,874/-. Since the corresponding quantum appeal has already been set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, we consider it appropriate to restore the present penalty appeal also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the penalty matter afresh, after deciding the quantum issues on merits, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing & 615/Coch/2025 are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2025.