AZIZUR RAHMAN KHAN,INDORE vs. ITO 4(4), INDORE, INDORE
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against an assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as it was filed with a delay of 869 days. The assessee claimed that they had initially filed the appeal within the statutory period, but later refiled it due to the introduction of the Faceless System.
Held
The Tribunal held that the initial filing of the appeal was within the statutory time limit. The dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay was incorrect. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the initial filing date and the circumstances of refiling under the Faceless System.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 05.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-13, Mumbai [“CIT(A), NFAC”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 05.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-4(4), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144/147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
Page 1 of 7
Azizur Rahman Khan ITA No. 549/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
“1.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,88,160/- as unexplained cash deposits u/s. 69 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without hearing the appeal on merits. 2 The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay. 3.The CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without 3 deciding the appeal on merits, and that a fair and meaningful opportunity was not available to the appellant to present his case.”
The background facts relating to present appeal are such that the AO,
on the basis of information in possession revealing cash deposit of Rs.
11,73,090/- made by assessee in bank a/c during the previous year 2011-
12 relevant to AY 2012-13 under consideration, issued notice u/s 148 dated
29.03.2019 to initiate the proceeding of assessment u/s 147. Thereafter, the
AO issued notices u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice u/s 144. However, all
notices issued by AO remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO
passed assessment-order dated 05.12.2019 u/s 144 assessing the deposits
of Rs. 11,73,090/- in bank a/c as unexplained investment u/s 69.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). However,
the CIT(A), NFAC dismissed assessee’s first-appeal in limine on the premise
that there was a delay of 869 days in filing appeal. Now, the assessee has
come in next appeal before us.
We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully
perused the case record.
Page 2 of 7
Azizur Rahman Khan ITA No. 549/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
It emerged during hearing that the assessee paid fee of Rs. 1,000/- on
05.01.2020 and filed first-appeal to CIT(A), Indore on 05.01.2010 under
“physical mode” then prevailing, which was within the statutory period of 30
days against the assessment-order dated 05.12.2019 passed by AO. Copy of
Form No. 35 (Appeal Memo of First-appeal) duly acknowledged by official
seal of CIT(A), Indore is filed at Pages 1-2 of Paper-Book and the same is
scanned and re-produced below:
Page 3 of 7
Azizur Rahman Khan ITA No. 549/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
Page 4 of 7
Azizur Rahman Khan ITA No. 549/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
Subsequently, the Faceless System of first-appeal was notified by Govt.
through Notification dated 25.09.2020 and the assessee refiled appeal on
22.04.2022 under “e-filing mode” under the impression that it was
necessary/mandatory to re-file. Therefore, the CIT(A), NFAC, being not
aware of earlier physical filing on 05.01.2020, inferred that the assessee
filed appeal only on 22.04.2022 against assessment-order dated 05.12.2019
and there was a delay. Therefore, in these facts, the impugned order passed
Page 5 of 7
Azizur Rahman Khan ITA No. 549/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
by CIT(A), NFAC dismissing assessee’s first-appeal on the footing of delayed
filing is not correct. We agree with Ld. AR’s submission that the assessee
had originally filed appeal within the statutory time of 30 days. Faced with
this situation, we set aside the impugned order passed by CIT(A), NFAC and
remit this matter to the file of CIT(A), NFAC for adjudication afresh. Needless
to mention that the CIT(A), NFAC shall give full opportunities to assessee
and the assessee shall also avail those opportunities without seeking
unnecessary adjournments. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 22/01/2026
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 22/01/2026
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary
Page 6 of 7
Azizur Rahman Khan ITA No. 549/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 7 of 7
