Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessees filed appeals against separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2019-20, which had been dismissed on technical grounds/non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. There was also a delay in filing these appeals, for which the assessees provided affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding 'sufficient cause' and admitting them for adjudication. It held that the dismissal by the CIT(A) without examining merits violated natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and both matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh de-novo adjudication, with directions for both parties to cooperate.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals; Dismissal of appeals by CIT(A) on technical grounds without adjudicating merits.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present appeals have been preferred by two different assessees against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, dated 10/11/2025 and 30/09/2025. Both appeals pertain to Assessment Year 2019-20
Since common facts and identical issues are involved, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay in filing the present appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) . The assessees have filed applications supported by affidavits explaining the reasons for delay, stating that they were prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause beyond their control from filing the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation.
The Ld. DR opposed the condonation.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The expression “sufficient cause” is required to be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. The delay does not appear to be deliberate or intentional but attributable to bona fide reasons. No mala fide intention or deliberate negligence is found. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without adjudicating the issues on merits and the assessees could not properly present their case before the lower authorities. It was therefore prayed that the matters may be restored for fresh adjudication.
The Ld. DR fairly submitted that if restored, appropriate directions may be issued to the assessees to cooperate in the proceedings. 8. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. We find that the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) were dismissed in limine/for non- prosecution and the additions were not examined on merits. Therefore, the issues involved require verification of primary facts and examination of evidence at the assessment stage. In our considered opinion, the principles of natural justice require that one more opportunity be granted to the assessees to substantiate their case. 8.1 Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions, the impugned orders are set aside, and both the matters are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh de-novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees and pass speaking orders in accordance with law after considering evidence that may be furnished. 8.2 The assessees are directed to cooperate in the proceedings and shall not seek unwarranted adjournments. In case of non-compliance, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to decide the matters in accordance with law based on material available on record. All grounds are kept open.
In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.