Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 20,45,000 paid in cash. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 10,95,355, which was half the investment, to the assessee's total income under section 69, as the source was not explained. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a significant delay of 28 months.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the negligence of her IT counsel. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for a sufficient cause and should be condoned.
Sections Cited
69, 147, 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against an order dated 20.03.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Ld. CIT(A), relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 arising out of order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2022.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the appeal is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record.
3. Brief facts of the case:- There was an information with the Assessing Officer that the assessee along with Smt. Poonam Gupta had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.20,45,000/- and paid stamp duty and other charges of Rs.1,45,710/- and the total consideration of Rs.20,45,000/- was paid in cash. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of investment of Rs.10,95,355/- (i.e. half share) which according to the Assessing Officer was not submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs.10,95,355/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that there was a delay of 28 months (approx) in filing of this appeal as the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 was received on 04.04.2022 and the appeal was filed on 20.08.2024. The explanation of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was as under:-
“The Appellant a lady from a backward place of Morena Chambal area for its Income Tax matters solely depended on her IT counsel, unfortunately the then IT counsel due to omission and inaction did not inform the appellant lady about the assessment (which was made due to counsel's lethargy U/s 144). The appellant came to know of the assessment when demand was pressed & she took immediate action to file the appeal. Under the circumstances the delay (28 months approx.) in fling the appeal may kindly be condoned & appeal admitted to advance the substantial cause of justice & obliged.” 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the above reasons and held that the assessee failed to prove that the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal was beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, he held that the delay in filing admitted.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record.
On perusal of the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) as reproduced above, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by a sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal in the facts of the case. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and further set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the his file for deciding it afresh. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of hearing.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2025.