Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file his return of income for AY 2015-16. The case was reopened, and after the assessee filed a return, an assessment order was passed, including an addition for unexplained investment in immovable property. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay in filing without condoning it.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal. Considering the liberal view taken by higher forums on condoning delays, it was deemed fit to direct the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and whether the delay was attributable to a sufficient cause.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144B, 69, 271(1)(c), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM &
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Mumbai (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking as the lead case.
& ors. Mr. Natarajan Sridhar 2. The assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened based on the information available on ITBA portal that the assessee had taxable salary income, entered into transaction on immovable property and had also made credit card payment of more than Rs.2,00,000/- but had failed to file his return of income, for which the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act.
Notice dated 24.06.2021 u/s 148 of the Act by the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’ for short) was issued and served upon the assessee, in response to the same the assessee has filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.50,86,460/-. After duly considering the assessee’s submission the Ld. AO passed the assessment order dated 11.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income at Rs.60,97,154/- after making an addition of Rs.10,10,694/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment pertaining to the investment made by the assessee in immovable property during the year under consideration. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide order dated 31.10.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, beyond the period of limitation on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for the said delay.
& ors. Mr. Natarajan Sridhar
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
It is observed that the assessee has challenged both the addition as well as the penalty levied by the Ld. AO before the first appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him stating that the assessee has failed to establish that there was ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay in filing the appeal without getting into the merits of the case. On perusal of the reasons cited by the assessee and also the quantum of delay, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation and there being no reason for any negligence on the part of the assessee. Further, we are also conscious of the fact that various higher forums namely the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble High Courts have taken a liberal view in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and rather has reiterated that instead of dismissing the appeal on procedural defect, the substantial issue in hand has to be decided. Hence, we deem it fit to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on the merits of the case and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to strictly comply with the proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A).
Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
The finding given in this appeal i.e. will apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal in as well and hence the same is also hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
& ors. Mr. Natarajan Sridhar 8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2026