SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 463 & 464/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15
Sarif S/o Shri Shafik, R/o 131, Vs. Income-tax Officer, Mohalla Pathanan, Jalesar, Etah. Ward 4(3)(1), Etah. PAN :EKAPS8873K (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Deepak Singh, Advocate Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 15.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2025
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals have been preferred by assessee against the impugned orders dated 23.06.2025 & 24.06.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10320101 and NFAC/2013-14/10320102 respectively by
the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15. Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s
first appeal preferred against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147/144B of the Act, upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. Ld. CIT(Appeals), also dismissed assessee’s first
ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025
appeal preferred against the penalty order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act.
Since, the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is
consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being
disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and
brevity. The facts of ITA No. 463/Agr/2025 are only being narrated as
under:
ITA No. 463/Agr/2025:
Brief facts state that appellant assessee filed his return of income
on 27.12.2014 declaring total income of Rs.7,96,720/-, which was
selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed on
30.11.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at
Rs.9,46,720/-. Subsequently, as per information available with the
department, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee made
bogus purchases of Rs.1,31,58,116/- from one Shri Kallu Kureshi and
there were various credit transactions in different bank accounts of the
assessee totaling to Rs.13,08,60,19,698/- , which did not match with the
return filed by the assessee and the declared sales of Rs.51,01,31,327/-.
Based on the aforesaid information, proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were
initiated by issuing notice u/s. 148 dated 30.07.2022, in response to
2 | P a g e
ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025
which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as
declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause
notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies
of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/-
u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and
Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated
22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned
CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s
prayer for condonation of delay.
This second appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that
the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting assessee’s appeal upon
rejection of assessee’s request for condonation of delay, further erred in
confirming the addition on merits.
Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee
and learned Sr. DR for Revenue.
At the very outset, it is brought to our notice that these appeals
have been filed on 07.10.2025 against the impugned orders dated
23.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 by a delay of about 39 days. Assessee has
moved an application for the condonation of delay on the ground that the
assessee, being an old illiterate person, has no knowledge of email etc. 3 | P a g e
ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025
and closed down his business in the year 2019. Assessee did not employ
any person for looking after his affairs. This caused the delay in filing this
appeal. Delay condonation application is supported with assessee’s
uncontroverted affidavit. The cause for the delay seems to be sufficient
and the delay of 39 days caused in filing these appeals stand condoned.
According to Form No. 35 available on record, assessee filed first
appeal on 27.02.2024 against the assessment order dated 22.05.2023
beyond the period of limitation along with the prayer to condone the
delay caused in filing the first appeal on the ground that the assessment
order dated 22.05.2023 came to the knowledge of the assessee only
when he received the penalty order on 23.02.2024. Further, assessee
pleaded his old age, illiteracy, and lack of any knowledge of email etc. as
the cause for delay in filing first appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals).
However, learned CIT(Appeals) rejected assessee’s prayer for
condonation of delay in filing the first appeal.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice
cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing
procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice
system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of
participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of
jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient 4 | P a g e
ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025
of justice, is not to be followed. The object of prescribing certain time
period for filing of the appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the
concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the instant
case, the uncontroverted reasons mentioned in the delay condonation
application are treated as sufficient and condone the delay caused in
filing the appeal before first appellate authority.
We are further surprised to note that after refuting assessee’s
prayer for condonation of delay, learned CIT(Appeals) proceeded to
decide the appeal on merit, which is contrary to the law. The law on the
subject is well settled that unless the delay is condoned, the appeal does
not come into existence legally, and in such absence, the court is wholly
without jurisdiction to hear or decide the same on merit.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D), 2024 SCC online SC 489, has observed that the
question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of
limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and
principles of equity, that the length of delay is a relevant matter, which
the court must take into consideration while considering whether the
delay should be condoned or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been
pleased to hold that while considering the plea for condonation of delay,
5 | P a g e
ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025
the court must not start with merits of the main matter. However, the
courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.
Thus, the issue of condonation of delay in the proceedings has to be decided at the first instance before delving into the merits of the case.
However, if the delay is condoned, there is no bar on the courts to
proceed with the case and decide the same on merits on the very day. In the same manner, if the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected, the
proceedings will automatically fail. It is, thus, settled that without
condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain such time barred appeals.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to
remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The
assessee is also directed to be cooperative in attending the hearings and
making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Needless to say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the
observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is, thus, liable
to be allowed for statistical purposes.
6 | P a g e
ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025
ITA No. 464/Agr/2025:
This appeal challenges the sustenance of penalty imposed u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act, which is consequential to the quantum additions
made in the assessment order. Since the issue relating to the quantum
addition has been remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals)
for fresh adjudication on merits, and as the present appeal pertains to the
penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is
consequential to the said quantum addition, we consider it appropriate to
remit this penalty matter also to the file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for
adjudication afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, this appeal is
also liable to be allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos. 463 & 464/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.12.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
7 | P a g e
