Loading judgment…
Facts
Two different assessees filed appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeals were significantly time-barred (223 days and 101 days respectively), with the assessees claiming lack of awareness of the online appeal orders. The CIT(A) had either dismissed the appeals ex-parte or upheld assessment additions without deciding on merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the assessees had fair cases on merits and their non-representation before CIT(A) was unintentional. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the cases were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide adequate opportunity of hearing, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- cost per case to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals; Validity of CIT(A) orders passed ex-parte or upholding additions without merit; Restoration of cases to CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
Sections Cited
40(a)(ia), 14A, 43B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
2-3.Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai 2-3.The Asst4.CIT Kugasiya, Plot No.23 Circle, Palanpur Prop. Harsiddhi Income Tax Office Corporation Palanpur – 385 001 Market Yard Iqbalgadh, Amirgadh Palanpur – 385 001 PAN: AVNPK 5629 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellants) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by two different assessees against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16/02/2024 in the case of Agrawal , 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya (2085 & 2086) vs. DCIT-ACIT Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 and dated 11/06/2024 in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19. These appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. for AY 2015-16 (in the case of Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF)
The assessee, in this appeal, has taken the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs. 15,05,313/-on account of income reported in Form 26AS.
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in remitting back the addition of Rs. 4,01,81,634 to Ld.AO without deciding the same.
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding disallowance of Rs. 11,85,978 u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act.
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs.2,88,589 made by the Ld.AO u/s.14A of the Act.
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding disallowance of Rs.21,72,779 made by the Ld.AO u/s.43B of the Act.
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs.1,00,69,987 made by the Ld.AO on account of prior period expenses.”
& 2086/Ahd/2024 (in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya)
The assessee, in these appeals, have taken common grounds of appeal: ”1. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in dismissing appeal ex-parte.
2. The CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding additions made in the course of assessment without deciding the same on merits.”
, 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya (2085 & 2086) vs. DCIT-ACIT Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively
These appeals are time-barred by 223 days (in the case of Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babuilal HUF) and 101 days (in the case of Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasia in each appeal). Separate applications for condonation of delay in filing these appeals have been filed by the assessees, wherein, it has been deposed that the assessee(s) was not aware of passing of online appeal order(s) by the Ld. CIT(A). That only on receipt of SMS/Call from Department for payment of demand the assessee verified the portal and, accordingly, gained knowledge of passing of the final appeal order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted that the assessees have a fair cases on merits. He has further submitted that the non-representation before the ld. CIT(A) was not intentional and further the delay in filing the present appeal(s) has occurred due to circumstances, which were beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has submitted that even there was no proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessees has requested that the assessees may be given an opportunity to present their cases before the Ld. AO.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
Considering the aforesaid submissions, in our view, the interests of justice will be well-served if the assessees be given an opportunity to present their cases before the Ld. CIT(A), however, subject to imposition of some reasonable costs. The delay in filing the present appeals is therefore condoned. The impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are, accordingly, set aside and the cases are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide these appeals of the assessees on merits, after giving adequate , 2085 & 2086/Ahd/2024 Agrawal Rajeshkumar Babulal HUF (2076 )& Dahyabhai Ganeshbhai Kugasiya (2085 & 2086) vs. DCIT-ACIT Asst. Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively opportunity of hearing to the assessees to present their cases, however, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case, to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The assessees will produce the receipts of such deposits before the CIT(A). Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) are set aside and the cases are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on merits. Needless to say, that the Ld.CIT(A) will give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessees to present their cases.