Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), which was delayed by 361 days due to alleged negligence of the Manager of Finance and Accounts. The assessee sought condonation of delay. The Revenue objected to the condonation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional and inadvertent. The Tribunal also set aside the order of the lower authorities and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to appear and provide all relevant details.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned? Whether the case should be remanded for a de novo assessment after providing proper opportunities?
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Year 2016-17] Sudhir Awana, vs ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), F-15, Sector-20, Gautam Budh Gautam Budh Nagar, Nagar, Noida, UP 201301 Noida, UP PAN: ABMPA0354N 201305 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Mr. Pancham Sethi, CA Assessee by Department by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.09.2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the CIT(A) in short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in appeal No. CIT(A) Ghaziabad/1-567/2018-19 dated 12.1.2023 for Assessment Year 2016-17.
This appeal is filed delayed by 361 days and an application for condonation of delay was filed wherein it is stated by the assessee that due to negligence of Manager Finance and Accounts Shri Deepak Kumar who was pre-occupied in his matrimonial disputes going on in family court could not be able to look after the ongoing income tax proceedings in the case of the assessee, therefore, the assessment order as well as the appeal was decided exparte and further the appeal could not be filed within time and delay was of 361 days was occurred. An Sudhir Awana Vs. ACIT affidavit of shri Deepak Kumar confirming these facts was also filed. It is thus, requested that delay be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication.
On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue objected to the condonation of delay.
Heard both the parties. Considering the facts stated by AR of the assessee in the petition filed for condonation of delay, we find that delay is unintentional and inadvertent due to negligence of Manager Finance of the assessee and the assessee should not suffer for the same. By filing the appeal delayed nothing would be earned on the part of the assessee. The reasons stated in the petition are not found to be false. We find that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal delayed. Therefore, the delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records.
A perusal of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A), NFAC clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has provided many opportunities and when the assessee failed to respond, It was in this backdrop that the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dispose-off the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment order. Even the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act due to non-compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It is true that the assessee also did not comply with the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) and did not file the requisite details/documents to support its claim however, in the larger interest of justice, the order of the lower authorities are site aside and sent back to the file of the Ao to pass the assessment order denovo fresh in accordance with law after giving proper and sufficient opportunities to the assessee of being heard. Assessee is also directed to appear and file all the relevant details before the AO.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.09.2025.