Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the assessment order and penalty order with significant delays. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to these delays. The assessee contended that the assessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte as their email was linked to their accountant, who failed to inform them about the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessment and penalty orders were passed ex-parte. The Tribunal set aside the assessment and penalty orders and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals on delay and latches, and if not, whether the delay should be condoned in light of the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A, 271(1)(C)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
(A.Y 2015-16) GunjanJaiswal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-2 (1)(1), H. NO. 84, Ward No. 3, Income Tax Officer, Civil TalliBamori, Haldwani, Lines, Haldwani, Uttarakhand -263139, Uttarakhand PAN: AGPPJ5741A Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv Revenue by Sh. MohitLal Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 09/06/2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that, assessment order came to be passed on 16/12/2021 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Consequent to the said assessment order, an order of penalty also came to be passed u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act on 21/09/2022. Aggrieved by the assessment order as well as order of penalty, the Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1034 and 854 days respectively.
The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the Appeals of the Assessee on delay in latches vide orders dated 09/06/2025. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 09/06/2025, Assessee preferred the captioned Appeals.
The Ld. Assessee's Representative vehemently submitted that both assessment order as well order of the penalty have been passed ex-parte, as the individual PAN of the Assessee contained the e-mail id of her Accountant who neither informed the Assessee about ongoing income tax proceedings in her individual name nor informed the tax consultant to attend the various notices being received in Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee came to know about passing of the assessment order and order of penalty only when the Assessee’s bank account was attached. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and heard the Appeals on its merit. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals of the Assessee.
The Ld. Department's Representative submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1034 and 854 days respectively in filing the Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeals of the Assessee on delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the captioned Appeals.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the assessment order and order of the penalty, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 1034 and 854 days respectively. As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that both assessment order as well order of the penalty have been passed ex-parte, as the individual PAN of the Assessee contained the e-mail id of her Accountant who neither informed the Assessee about ongoing income tax proceedings in her individual name nor informed the tax consultant to attend the various notices being received in Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee came to know about passing of the assessment order and order of penalty only when the Assessee’s bank account was attached.However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeals.
It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeals on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1034 and 854 days in filing the first Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). Furtherconsidering the fact that even the assessment order and the order of penalty have been passed ex-parte, no fruitful object will be achieved if the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we set aside the assessment order and order of penalty and remand the issue to the file of the A.O. for framing de- novo assessment in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to co- operate with the assessment proceedings without fail.
In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2025