Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an ex-parte assessment order for AY 2014-15, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B, was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to a 189-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed unawareness of the assessment proceedings and order until her bank account was attached by the department on 20.09.2022, after which she appointed a new counsel and filed the delayed appeal. The CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to explain the delay, noting an incorrect statement in Form No. 35 regarding no delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 189-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's genuine unawareness of the assessment order until her bank account was attached. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeal, provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and decide the case on its merits. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without granting an opportunity to explain the delay. Whether there was sufficient cause for condoning the 189-day delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, warranting a remand for adjudication on merits.
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, Section 144B 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
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 13.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2022. relates to a single issue that no reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing was allowed by the AO as well as by the ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that there was a delay in filing the appeal of 189 days before the first appellate authority, and the ld.
CIT(A) has not given any opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and the appeal has not been admitted for hearing on merits, because the delay has not been condoned and the appeal has been dismissed in limine.
In course of hearing before the Tribunal ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was unaware of the assessment proceedings and was also had no knowledge of the assessment order which has been passed ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, 61, because the earlier counsel of the assessee never informed passing of such ex-parte order. He further explained that the assessee came to know of the assessment order from her bankers because her bank account was attached by the department on 20.09.2022. Thereafter, the assessee appointed a new counsel and filed her appeal on Nov., 2022 which is belated by 189 days. He further stated that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without allowing any opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. appellate authority for admitting the appeal and to decide on the issues contained in the grounds of appeal on merits of the case.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has pointed out from the contents of Form No. 35 (serial no. 14) where the assessee has stated that there is no delay in filing the appeal. He further stated that this is incorrect information contained in Form No. 35 and the ld. CIT(A) has also discussed the same in his appellate order before refusing to condone the delay in absence of any application for condonation contained in the memorandum of appeal, and without any reasons being shown before the first appellate authority. However, he has no objection, if the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record and we find that the assessee has not filed any condonation application and has not given any reasons for filing the appeal belatedly in his memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 which is not as per provisions of law and it has been wrongly stated therein that there is no delay, which resulted in dismissing of the appeal in limine by the ld. first appellate authority, without affording any opportunity of hearing.
However, considering the assessee’s submissions and the affidavits filed that the learnt from her bankers, Jammu & Kashmir Bank on 20.09.2022, allowing which certified copy of assessment order was obtained, new counsel has been engaged and the appeal was filed before the ld. first appellate authority belated by 189 days (one hundred eighty nine).
As such, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for admitting the appeal to be considered for hearing and for adjudicating on the grounds contained in Form No. 35 on the merits of the case.
As such, we condone the delay and the matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority to allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file all documentary evidences and submissions in support of her contention and we direct the assessee to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings before the ld. first appellate authority for proper disposal of the appeal.
We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 31.07.2025.