Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a significant delay of 565 days. The assessee attributed this delay to a lack of understanding of income tax laws and inadequate guidance from their consultant. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but condoned it in the interest of justice, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- as cost. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance without deciding on merits, issuing a non-speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the CIT(A) order was a speaking order on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-21/11421/2019-20 dated 4.9.2023. Assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward 69(8), New Delhi u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 4.09.2023 relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee.
At the threshold, it is noted that there is delay of 565 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for this the assessee has filed the petition for condonation wherein, it was stated that the assessee is an individual who is not well versed with intricacies of income tax law and was completely unaware of the legal requirement to file the appeal before the Tribunal within a specific time frame. It was further mentioned in the above-said condonation petition that his erstwhile consultant, could not apprise the assessee about the outcome of the appeal decided by the Ld. CIT(A) and nor provided any further guidance, as a result thereof, the assessee has filed the belated appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing the Ld. DR and after perusing the records, we are of the view that reasonable cause has not been attributed to the assessee for filing the belated appeal before the Tribunal, however, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, we are taking a lenient view and accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in dispute in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the condition that Assessee should deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with the “Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Delhi”) towards cost on account of inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which Ld. DR has no objection.
After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by upholding the action of the AO due to non-compliance of the assessee, but Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit of the case and passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit back 2 | P a g e the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, subject to condition that Assessee should file the challan of Rs. 10,000/- as directed above, before the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A), for which Ld. DR agreed.
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18.11.2025.