Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order for AY 2017-18, passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B, which included an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 69. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a 232-day delay in filing. The assessee subsequently appealed to the ITAT, also with a 70-day delay, requesting condonation of both delays and a fresh adjudication on the merits of the addition.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 70-day delay in filing the appeal before itself, noting the tax consultant's mistake. It also condoned the 232-day delay in filing before the CIT(A), finding mitigating circumstances. Recognizing that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking on merits, and to uphold natural justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits, while imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the assessee for non-compliance.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before CIT(A) and ITAT; Adjudication of addition under section 69 on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vs. Amitkumar Ramkishorbhai ITO, Ward 1, Sharma, Shakti Chambers, NH-27, C/o. Sarda & Sarda, Sakar, Anand Nagar, 1st Floor, Dr. Radha- Morvi - 363642 Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot - 360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BFRPS8379K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 28/02/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 26/05/2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:
Order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad in law.
2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
The Id. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act on account of unexplained cash payment. The appeal filed by the assessee, before this Tribunal, for Assessment Year 3. 2017-18, is barred by limitation by 70 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that because of the mistake of the tax consultant of the assessee, the delay of 70 days occurred in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, which may be condoned in the interest of justice. However, learned DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay and stated that appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) for 232 days. The assessee has explained the sufficient cause during the appellate proceedings. Despite of this, the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 232 days and did not admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit and dismiss the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay, in filing the appeal, before him. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed the Bench that now the assessee wants to submit documents and evidences, on merit, before the assessing officer, therefore, delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A) may be condoned and the matter, may be restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 5. On the other hand, learned DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee and stated that delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A) should not be condoned. Page | 2
I have gone through the petition for condonation of delay, filed before ld. CIT(A) and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee, in the petition for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before Ld. CIT(A) and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
On merit, I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex-parte order and non-speaking order, on merit, ( As the learned CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee, on account of delay in filing the appeal, before him) therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard, on merit, and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. However, on account of non- compliance attitude of the assessee, I, impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/-, on the assessee, which should be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of Page | 3 being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025.