Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, who did not file ITR for AY 2015-16, faced reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by the AO, leading to additions of Rs. 29 lakhs for short-term capital gains and other income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 21-day delay in filing, without adjudicating on merits, prompting the assessee to appeal to the ITAT.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 296-day delay in filing the appeal before it and held that the CIT(A) should have adopted a pragmatic approach and condoned the 21-day delay in the first appeal. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
The primary issues concerned the condonation of delays in filing appeals at both the CIT(A) and ITAT levels, and the validity and merits of the additions made by the AO under reassessment proceedings, including the eligibility for Section 54F exemption.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 250, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 144B, 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 23/07/2024, passed by the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, u/sec 147r.w.s144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2015–16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:–
“1. The order passed by Hon'ble CH(A) is illegal invalid and bad in law. The Hon'ble CICA) erred in sustaining the action of the 1d. AD on total additions of Rs. 29,00,000/- is incorrect, unjustifiable, excessive and should be quashed. The CIT(A) looking into the facts & circumstances would have condoned the delay of 21 days in tiling of appeal since the 2 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 assessee being a person with no means working as Watchman. The assessee was advised to provide with the documents for claiming of relief which he received on 09th May 2023 and subsequent to which appeal before the CIT(A) was filed. The Ld. CIT(A) should have look into the merits of the case instead of not admitting the appeal.
2. The notice issued us. 148 is invalid and bad in law on the basis of judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court ie. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai & others (Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023) dt. 03rd May 2024 & subsequent judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ADIT (Int Taxn) 2 Hyd& Aar, vs. Deepanjan Roy (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nots), 33956/2025) dt. 16 July 2025 3. The addition made of Rs. 29,00,000- by the Ld. AO & sustained by Hon'ble CIT(A) by ignoring that the assessment wherein the sale consideration of the agriculture land was considered as short-term capital gain & without giving benetit of cost of acquisition by the Ld. AO in the absence of purchase deed while the assessee had specifically stated that he had inherited the ancestral property alongwith his 2 sisters & 3 legal heir of brother.
4. The Ld. AO could have called for the valuation of said land from DVO or any other registered valuer. Further alternatively the benefit of provision of section 54F was not given without appreciating the fact that the construction was carried out by local contractor & as assessee was staying in small village with no knowledge about the storage of bills. vouchers etc. & there was no requirement for clearance of pollution etc. The lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and further erred in grossly ignoring submissions. explanations and information submitted by the Appellant during the assessment which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as illegal.
5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. Any consequential relief, to which the appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted. The appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of appeal and the factual and legal arguments against the addition by the L.d. CIT (A) Ld. AO at the time or before the course of appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.”
There is a delay of 296 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application and affidavit for 3 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 condonation of delay explaining the sufficient cause. Whereas the facts mentioned in the application/affidavit are reasonable and the learned D.R. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015–16. The assessing officer has received the information that the assessee has sold the immovable property and received commission income in the F.Y2014-15 . The assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and notice u/sec148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance the assesee has filed the details on various dates. Whereas the assesseing officer was not satisfied with the explanations and material evidences and made addition of Short term capital gains of Rs.29,00,000/-and similarly salary and commission income aggregating to Rs.1,92,333/- and assessed the total income of Rs.30,92,333/- and passed the order u/sec147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 27-03-2023. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed the appeal with the CIT(A).
In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal and the assessee could not explain the delay with sufficient cause. Whereas, the assessee has filed the detailed explanations for the delay but the CIT(A) was not satisfied with the 4 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 explanations and has not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine/ not maintainable. The assessee being aggrieved by the order has filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.DR relied on the CIT(A) order.
Heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima–facie, the sole grievance of the assessee that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable by overlooking the fact that the assessee was trying to arrange for the relevant documents for claiming exemption u/sec 54F of the Act and not a deliberate act. On a perusal of the CIT(A) order, the appellate authority has provided opportunity to explain the sufficient case for the delay in filing the appeal and there was compliance by the assessee explaining the delay dealt at Para2.1 of the order .Whereas the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee is supported with the sufficient cause and pragmatic approach should be considered for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay is condoned. Hence, considering the facts, circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity for hearing. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and restore the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate issues afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee should co–
5 Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede ITA no.461/NAG./2025 operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/10/2025