ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order, which originated from an AO's assessment order under sections 147 read with 144. The appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by 24 days, and the previous appeal before the CIT(A) was belated by 257 days. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal *in limine* without condoning the delay or allowing the assessee to explain it, despite the assessee citing a family member's medical treatment and alleged improper service of the assessment order as reasons for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 24-day delay in filing the appeal before it, finding no willful default. Regarding the 257-day delay at the CIT(A) level, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal *in limine* without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to allow the assessee to furnish proper documents and explanations for the delay, and then to decide the appeal on its merits if the delay is satisfactorily explained and condoned.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be condoned. 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal *in limine* due to delay without granting the assessee an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay.
Sections Cited
Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 22.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has
emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-1, Srinagar passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 18.05.2023.
2 I.T.A. No. 134/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is filed 3.
belatedly by 24 (twenty four) days. An application for condonation of delay has been
filed by the assessee, the order of the ld. CIT(A) has been received on 22.11.2024
and the appeal in this case has been filed before the Tribunal on 14.02.2025 which is
barred by 24 (twenty four) days.
The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the
delay to be on account of medical treatment of his family member (Mrs. Saleema
Begum) and has filed supporting medical documents from Government S.M.H.S.
Hospital, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir for the period of October and November,
2024.
As such, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and
the appeal has been filed belatedly by 24 days due to circumstances beyond his
control and as such, he prayed for condonation of delay and for admission of appeal
for deciding on merits.
The ld. DR has no objection, considering the medical issues involved. We are
also of the opinion that there is no willful default on the part of the assessee as such
we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
The assessee has taken 8 (eight) grounds of appeal in the memorandum of
appeal in form no. 36 and all the grounds relates to the issue that the proper
3 I.T.A. No. 134/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 opportunity of hearing has not been granted by the ld. first appellate authority and the
appeal has been dismissed, without the delay of 257 (two hundred fifty seven) days
in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority being condoned. In course of
hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal before the first appellate
authority has been belatedly filed by 257 (two hundred fifty seven) days because the
appellate order has not been issued through e-mail, because the assessee does not
have own any registered of his own mail, and the mail that existed in the portal of the
assessee belongs to the agent who helped the assessee to obtain the PAN card and the
assessment order was served by the postal department on some unidentified person at
an unidentified place.
Subsequently, on gathering information from the department regarding the
existence of the assessment order, a counsel has been appointed and with the help of
newly appointed counsel, the appeal was filed before the first appellate authority
which was belated by 257 days. He further submitted that apart from above, the
family member of the assessee was seriously ill and had to undergo prolonged
medical treatment which are evident from hospital and diagnostic records copy of
which are filed before the Tribunal.
He stated that during the course of appellate proceedings before the first
appellate authority no opportunity of hearing was allowed to explain the delay which
4 I.T.A. No. 134/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the assessee submits could have been easily explained to the satisfaction of the ld.
first appellate authority but no opportunity of explaining the delay was allowed
before dismissing the appeal.
The ld. DR submitted that no proper reasons have been forwarded by the
assessee as to why the huge delay of 257 days in filing of appeal before the ld. first
appellate authority has arisen, except simply stating that the order has been served on
unidentified person and relying on some medical documents of family members.
As such, he prayed that the issue of delay of 257 days should be properly
explained before the ld. first appellate authority before proceeding on merits.
We have heard the rival submission and considered the materials on record and
we find that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in limine without
admitting the appeal for adjudication, because of delay without condoning the same.
However, we feel that the ld. CIT(A) should have given an opportunity to the
assessee to explain the reasons for the delay, and thereafter the decision should have
been taken whether to admit the appeal for hearing on merits or not. However, the
medical certificates filed before us should have been filed before the first appellate
authority.
Since, in this case, no opportunity was allowed to the assessee to put forth his
submission regarding the cause of delay in filing of this appeal which is belated by
5 I.T.A. No. 134/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 257 days before the first appellate authority, we are of the opinion that interest of
justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. CIT(A)
with a direction to grant necessary opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay
satisfactorily before proceeding on the merits of the case.
As such, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) with above
directions and we also direct the assessee to furnish proper documents and
explanations to explain the delay of 257 days before the ld. CIT(A) and after
satisfactory explanations of the same, the appeal may be admitted to be decided on
merits on the grounds contained in Form No. 35.
We have not expressed any opinion on the reasons of the delay.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 31.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned
6 I.T.A. No. 134/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15
(4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
