Loading judgment…
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:
“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.
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:
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 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