Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged a CIT(A) order for AY 2016-17, which had dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The assessee was also ex-parte before the AO, claiming unawareness of tax proceedings and that the email ID on the e-filing portal belonged to a previous tax consultant, causing the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), applying the principle of substantial justice based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors. Consequently, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case, without commenting on the merits of the dispute.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). 2. Granting a fresh opportunity to the assessee who was ex-parte before the AO and CIT(A).
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
Date of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 20.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17.
From the records, we noticed that the assessee was 2. ex-parte before the AO and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation.
. Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj, Surat 3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that assessee has categorically submitted that he was not aware about the tax proceeding and the email id registered on the e-filing portal was of his previous tax consultant and thus assessee ‘explained’ the circumstance because of which he could not file the appeal within time before the Ld. CIT(A).
Considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji& Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC),wherein it has been held that wheresubstantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non- deliberatedelay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred.In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is ofprime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delaywhich occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression"sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay infiling the appeal before Ld. CIT(A).Therefore we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A).
Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). From the records we also noticed that . Jayvirsinh Mahendrasinh Raj, Surat assessee was ex-parte before AO as well therefore we are of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before AO. Therefore considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.