Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI
आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals are time barred by 995 days. Petitions for condonation of delay and sworn affidavits have been filed for both the matters. For the sake of convenience, the detailed petition for is being extracted in part:
“MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. 1. That the captioned appeal is being filed against the ex parte order dated 29.08.2022 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’), by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Delhi.
2. That the Applicant has dealt with facts of the case more extensively in the captioned application and appeal and has explained the circumstances leading to filing of said application and also the contentions of law. The Application craves leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to treat the contents of the said application as part and parcel of this application for appropriate directions. For sake of brevity, the said facts and grounds are not repeated herein.
That there has been a delay in filing the present appeal, which is being filed on 21.07.2025, resulting in a delay of approximately 997 days from the date of the impugned order. The present application is being filed seeking condonation of this delay, which has occurred on account of bona-fide and unavoidable circumstances entirely beyond his control.
4. That the primary reason for the delay is the non-service of statutory notices and the assessment order at the correct address of the appellant. It is respectfully submitted that all communications, including the notices under Sections 143(2), 142(1), and the show-cause notice under Section 144, were dispatched to incorrect or outdated addresses, such as “C-962, Yamuna Vihar,” which is a typographical error, or an erstwhile address in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The correct and operational address of the appellant at all relevant times was “C-9/62, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053”, which is duly updated in the Department’s records and has been reaffirmed by the appellant in his letter dated 11.06.2025, a copy whereof is annexed to the appeal.
5. That due to this address-related error, the appellant remained completely unaware of the initiation or pendency of any assessment proceedings, and consequently, was deprived of an opportunity of participating in the same. It was only upon receipt of a subsequent departmental notice dated 28.05.2025 served at the correct address that the appellant became aware of the existence of the impugned ex parte order and the massive demand raised therein. The present appeal has been filed within a fortnight thereafter, promptly and in utmost good faith.
That in addition to the above, the delay in taking steps was further compounded by the fact that the appellant has been undergoing neuropsychiatric treatment during the relevant period. Medical records of the Appellant are enclosed herewith in support of the same. The medical condition of the appellant further impaired his ability to independently track or manage his tax affairs, which added to the delay in discovering the order and pursuing the appellate remedy.
That the appellant submits with utmost humility and candour that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence or mala fide, but is a result of circumstances beyond his control, both procedural (non-service at correct address) and personal (medical illness). The appellant acted with promptitude and diligence upon becoming aware of the impugned order and has since cooperated fully with the departmental proceedings.
That it is a cardinal principle of law that normally by and large, the appeals are required to be decided on merits rather than dismissing the same on technical ground like delay etc., unless it is found that there was gross negligence on the part of the assessee and / or there was any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and / or in filing the appeals belatedly……..”
1.1 The assessee has also relied on a number of authorities to canvass the point that unintentional delay in filing of appeals should normally be condoned as the assessee does not gain anything by filing delayed appeals.
1.2 Considering the reasons given in the said petitions, the delays in both the cases are hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication.
These two appeals arise from orders both dated 29.08.2022, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-27, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). In both these cases additions have been made u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits and alleged unexplained investments. In ITA 4536 there is an additional addition of Rs.1.64 lakhs u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Both these appeals pertained to ex parte orders at both assessment and first appellate levels.
2.1 The assessee is aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. The assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which are unnecessarily lengthy and argumentative. Suffice it to say that the assessee has challenged the action of Ld. AO on factual as well as jurisdictional parameters.
3. Before us the Ld. AR pleaded for another chance for the assessee to be able to present the facts before the authorities below. It was pointed out that the affidavit and the petition for condoning delays before the ITAT give the reasons why compliance could not be made before the authorities below. It was the submission that the assessee was totally unaware of the notices issued by the authorities below since they were issued on addresses not pertaining to the assessee. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by praying for remitting these matters back to the Ld. AO so that the factual issues can be presented before him.
3.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully perused the documents before us and have heard the Ld. AR/DR. While it is true that notices have been sent at addresses given by the assessee only and even otherwise there is non- compliance when notices have been sent through registered email addresses of the assessee. However, the fact remains that there has been no examination of any evidence whatsoever at the lower levels and thus, we are unable to proceed in the absence of an analysis of facts at the lower levels. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has indeed been less than vigilant about pursuing his tax matters and thus, we deem it fit to impose cost of Rs.10,000/-, being a consolidated amount for both the appeals, which must be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committeeby 31.01.2026.
4.1 In the interests of justice, we set aside both the impugned orders and remand these matters back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The assessee would be expected to be vigilant about such proceedings and would file all the necessary evidence before the Ld. AO.
In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025