Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2016-17, and the case was reopened under section 147 due to substantial cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 60,85,071, assessing total income at Rs. 64,59,640. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's first appeal in limine due to a delay of 173 days.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to the assessee's mother's serious illness and subsequent demise, and lack of professional assistance. Citing the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for delay without considering the genuine hardship faced by the assessee. The penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is consequential to the assessment order.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both these appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate impugned orders both dated 04.03.2025 passed in Appeal No.
NFAC/2015-16/10193352 and NFAC/2015-16/10193351 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 2016-17, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act, upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals).
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 only are being narrated as under.
ITA No. 228/Agr/2025:
Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 23.03.2017 for the year under consideration, declaring total income at Rs.3,74,573/-. Based on the information available with the department that the assessee had deposited Rs.60,85,071/- by way of cash/NEFT/RTGS in various bank accounts maintained with Zila Sehkari Bank Ltd. during F.Y. 2015-16, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act.
Notice dated 30.03.2021 u/s. 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. Assessee filed return of income on 14.04.2021 in response thereof. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same in limine upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay caused in filing the first appeal.
This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others, that ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for delay of 173 days without considering the genuine hardship faced by the assessee due to serious illness and subsequent demise of his mother.
Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue.
At the very outset, we note that the first appeal was filed on 20.10.2022 against the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 by a delay of about 173 days. It transpires from the perusal of impugned order that the assessee did neither mention the factum of delay in filing first appeal in form No. 35 nor moved any delay condonation application before ld.
3 | P a g e CIT(Appeals). However, the appellant assessee has moved delay condonation application along with death certificate of his mother before this Tribunal. The cause for the delay has been shown to be serious ailment of assessee’s mother and her subsequent demise on 11.01.2023 coupled with lack of professional assistance in filing the first appeal.
It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. 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 of justice, is not to be followed. The object of prescribing certain time period for filing an appeal is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the cause of delay sufficient and condone the delay caused in filing first appeal before the ld. CIT(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 ld. CIT(Appeals) is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order. The assessee is also directed to be cooperative in attending the hearings and 4 | P a g e 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.
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 and are allowed for statistical purposes.