SONU, FAZILKA,PUNJAB vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, JOA ITO WARD 2(3), ABOHAR, PUNJAB
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for delay without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the cause. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to explain the delay with sufficient reasons, and thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order which determined a total income of Rs. 9.13 lakhs after finding cash deposits of Rs. 74.4 lakhs and commission income, with no return filed. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine, refusing to condone a delay of 117 days in filing, without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 117 days and without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and be heard on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 249(3),Section 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 15.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, NFAC passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.03.2023. main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the same on merits of the case by refusing to condone the delay of 117 (one hundred seventeen) days in filing the appeal without considering the reasons put forth by the assessee, apart from other grounds disputing the additions made on merits of the case.
Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee has made deposit of cash amounting to Rs.74.4 lakhs in his various bank accounts maintained with Central Bank of India (including current accounts) in the name of M/s Midha Communication and in the name of Sonu and Mr. Bhagvandas and no return has been filed. In course of assessment proceedings, there has not been any response to various notices issued from the department and no explanations has been filed explaining the source of bank deposits. The assessment was ultimately completed on the basis of information gathered from banks and information contained in the Income tax portal (Form No. 26AS) from where it was evident that the assessee has received commission income from various Cellular Companies like Aircel Ltd., Airtel Payments Bank Ltd. and Bharti Hexacom Ltd. and assessment has been completed at a total income of Rs.9.13 lakhs. authority in limine without admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits, refusing to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by 117 days and rejecting the same u/s 249(3) of the Act in absence of sufficient cause.
In course of hearing, there has not been any appearance either by the assessee or his ld. AR in spite of repeated calls either physically or virtually.
However, it is seen that before rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay, no opportunity of hearing has been allowed to the assessee to put forth his reasons and to explain the cause of delay of 117 days. As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority to allow adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay with sufficient reasons and thereafter on satisfactory explanation of the same, the ld. first appellate authority may proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits of the case on various grounds contained therein.
The assessee should be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and notices to be issued as per section 282 of the Act and the e-mail id as contained in Form No. 35 and the assessee is directed to file all documentary evidences and submissions and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 27.11.2025
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- Smt. Amna Baghel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Gr Infra Projects Limited Ratlam Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Pankaj Das vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Harshita Seeds vs. Idbi BankMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026
- Rajdeep vs. Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 14 Oct 2026