Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals challenging the orders of the CIT(A) which dismissed the quantum appeal and penalty orders due to a delay of 1386 days. The assessee's father was in jail, leading to non-compliance with AO's notices, which were sent to the jail superintendent, resulting in ex-parte orders.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay of 1386 days, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji& Others, which emphasizes a liberal approach to delays with justifiable causes for substantial justice. The appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay of 1386 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) was intentional and if the delay should be condoned to decide the appeals on merits.
Sections Cited
144, 272A(1)(d), 271B, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
(A.Y. 2017-18) ITA No. 136/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Rishabh Dev Vs Income Tax Officer, 215/135, Mohini Road, Ward-1(2)(2), Dehradun-248001 Aaykar Bhawan, 13-A, Subhash Road, Dehradun PAN: CVTPM9295H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. PankajGoel, Adv. Revenue by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee challenging the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A) for short), dated 16.06.2025 and 17.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2017- 18, wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismiss the quantum appeal and also appeals filed challenging the penalty orders passed by the A.O.
Brief facts of the case are that,an assessment order has been framed against the assessee u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and passed order of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d), u/s 271B and u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act which were called in question by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) with delay of 1386 days in all the appeals. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals on delay in latches vide impugned orders dated 16.06.2025 (quantum appeal) and 17.06.2025 (penalty appeals), which are called in question before us.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as the father of the assessee was lodged in jail,therefore no compliance of the notices issued by the A.O. could be made and the notices were issued to the jail Superintendent which resulted in passing the ex-parte assessment order as well as order of penalty. The appellant came to know about passing the order belatedly, thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned and further prayed for restoring the first appeal to the file of the ld.
CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeals on merits.
Per contra, the ld. DR relying on the orders of the lower authorities, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on the record. As could be seen from the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee contended that his father waslodged in jail and the notices were issued to Superintendent of Police, further contended the ex-parte orders have been passed by the AO without serving the notice to the appellant.
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 1386 days in filing the first appeals and remand the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say, assessee shall be provided with opportunities of being heard.
In the result, the appeals in 133, 135, & 136/DDN/2025 of the assessee arepartly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on September, 2025
Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 17 .09.2025 Subodh, Sr.P.S/ R.N,Sr. PS*