Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 117-day delay. The assessee contended that the delay was not intentional and that they did not receive the notice regarding the delay. The assessee requested an opportunity to file a formal condonation request with supporting evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that the principle of "sufficient cause" for condoning delay should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the delay was not inordinate and the assessee deserved another opportunity to explain it.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without granting an opportunity for condonation. Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
O R D E R
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 2nd September, 2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, CIT(A)] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:
M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited, AY 2013-14 i. “That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad in law. ii. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. iii. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Act. iv. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,55,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. v. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessment order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.
At the threshold, it is observed that the CIT(A) declined to admit the Assessee’s appeal on the grounds of a 117-day delay, citing a failure to provide sufficient cause or documentary evidence for condonation 2.1 The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the failure to respond to the CIT(A)’s notice regarding the delay was neither intentional nor contumacious. It was contended that the notice issued by the NFAC was not served upon or noticed by the Assessee in time. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity to demonstrate "sufficient cause"— which primarily involved the non-availability of professional counsel and prevailing financial hardships. A plea was made to remit the matter to allow the Assessee to formalize the condonation request via a sworn affidavit and supporting evidence.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the ma- terial on record.
3.1 It is a settled principle of law that the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction to advance the cause
M/S Nam Technologies Private Limited, AY 2013-14 of substantial justice. When technical considerations and the cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the lat- ter must prevail.
3.2 In the instant case, the Assessee had briefly explained the delay in Column 15 of Form No. 35. However, the CIT(A) dis- missed the appeal in limine without the benefit of a formal con- donation petition or affidavit, as the Assessee failed to respond to the statutory notice. The Assessee’s primary contention—that this notice was not received—touches upon the principles of nat- ural justice.
3.3 Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. We find that the Assessee deserves a one more opportunity to explain the lapse of 117 days. A delay of this dura- tion is not so inordinate as to suggest a lack of bona fides or a deliberate abandonment of the right to appeal, especially given the high stakes involved (an addition of Rs. 5.55 Crores).
3.4 In light of the above, and to ensure that the Assessee is not non-suited on purely technical grounds without a hearing on me- rits, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with the direction to the Assessee to file a formal petition for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence, before the ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall evaluate the sufficiency of the cause shown in accor- dance with the law. Should the delay be condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on their