Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file an Income Tax Return. The Assessing Officer, based on ITBA data, found cash deposits in the assessee's bank account during FY 2013-14 and initiated reassessment proceedings. After no explanations were filed, the AO made additions under section 68 of the Act, assessing total income at Rs. 23,35,660/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay, providing reasons, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal, referencing Supreme Court decisions on condonation of delay, found that there was sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should be taken. It condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to submit evidence. All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The legality of additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c), Section 271B, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 249(3), Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules 1963, Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Ravindra Poojary.AR Revenue by Shri.Madesha N M. Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 27.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ,JM: These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / (CIT(A) passed (i) u/sec 147 r.w.s144 and u/sec 250 of the Act (ii) u/sec271(1)(c) and u/se c250 of the Act and (iii) u/sec271B and u/sec250 of the Act for the A.Y.2014-15. The assesse has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the CIT(A).
2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a & 286/PAN/2025 Gourish Gopinath Desai. consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, shall take up as a lead case and facts narrated.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data found that the assesse has made cash deposits in the F.Y.2013-14 in the bank account maintained with the Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and the assesse has filed the return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.3,11,780/- And further notices u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued to furnish the details and substantiate the cash deposits in the bank account, Since, no explanations/details were filed, the AO considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of Sec. 144 of the Act and finally made an addition under section 68 of the Act(i)opening balance of Rs.10,29,558/- and (ii) similarly Rs.9,94,319/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,35,660/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 03.05.2023.
4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A),whereas the CIT(A) has issued notice and there was compliance by the assessee and there was delay in filling the appeal and the assessee has filed the sufficient reasons for the delay dealt at Page 5 of the & 286/PAN/2025 Gourish Gopinath Desai. order. Whereas the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the assessee appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts that the assessee has received the A.O order and has filed the appeal before appellate authorities and the delay was not a wanton act but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Further the Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with the material evidences before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assesse in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with the reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal
challenging the additions u/sec68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay in filling the appeal was filed along with the affidavit before the CIT(A) dealt at Page 5 of the order. Therefore Considering the facts, provisions and the & 286/PAN/2025 Gourish Gopinath Desai. contents of the application/affidavit dealt by the CIT(A) there is a reasonable cause explained and there is no benefit is derived in causing delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012)
12. SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into & 286/PAN/2025 Gourish Gopinath Desai. consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”
7. The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :
“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step- motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non & 286/PAN/2025 Gourish Gopinath Desai. grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.”
Respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and pragmatic approach should be considered for condonation of delay and accordingly the delay is condoned. Further considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal
of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. & 286/PAN/2025
10. As the facts and circumstances in these two appeals are identical to (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph 8&9 & 286/PAN/2025 Gourish Gopinath Desai. would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. Accordingly the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 27/10/2025 as per rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules 1963