Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited Rs.10 lakhs cash, leading the AO to reopen the assessment under Section 147. Due to non-compliance with notices, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, making an addition of Rs.2.25 crores under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of a 330-day delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay, asserting that technical lapses should not override substantial justice. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. All appeals were allowed for statistical purposes with similar directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely due to a 330-day delay. 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned to allow a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 142(1), 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Manmohan Das
order
: November 20, 2025 ORDER
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] for the AY 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. is taken as lead case for narration of facts. facts in brief are that during the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.10,00,000/- in its bank account maintained with ICICI bank. Thereafter, the case of the reopened u/s 147 and subsequently statutory notice u/s 142(1) was issued but the assessee was failed to respond. Due to non-compliance, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.2,25,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 330 days in filing the appeal but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee solely on the ground of the said delay.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that in support of the delay of 330 days before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee-company explained that the said delay occurred due to ignorance and the delay was purely unintentional and without the control of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that proper compliance could not be made before the authorities below and requested for another chance to prove his case before either of the authorities below.
The Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the above prayer made by the ld. AR.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance and also the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay of 330 days without discussing and deciding the issues on merits and the assessee could not participate before the lower authorities. We note that the assessee explained the reasons for the said delay and the same was beyond the control of the assessee. We further note that the various judicial forums have constantly held that technical lapses should not override the cause of substantial justice. Thus, in the interest of 2 substantive justice, we condone the delay of 330 days before the ld. CIT(A) by setting aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit back this matter to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the same on merits after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to fully cooperate in the remand proceedings and submit all necessary evidences to substantiate its claim. Hence, is allowed for statistical purposes. the facts and issues involved in all the appeals are identical, therefore, our findings/directions given above in the above will mutatis mutandis apply to & 237/GTY/2025 also. Hence, & 237/GTY/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Kolkata, the 20th November, 2025.