SEEMA SINHA,INDORE vs. ITO-4(4), BHOPAL, BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, finding that it was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to be heard on both the delay and the merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 162 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, citing lack of satisfactory explanation and evidence from the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the cause of delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 20.10.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and consequently, also erred in not admitting such appeal without properly appreciating the facts of the case.
ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha 2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when reopening was done in absence of any tangible material and live link of concealment of income and merely for verification of source of cash deposits in the bank account.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposited in the bank account by treating it as unexplained investment and unexplained money without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 4.The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal
as taken by her.”
2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine as barred by limitation. He has further submitted that the CIT(A) has declined to condone delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A). He has referred to form 35 and submitted that the assessee has explained the reasons for delay in from 35 itself which were not considered by the CIT(A). Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be decided on merits. He has also contended that reopening of the assessment is not valid when the AO has already conducted an inquiry by issuing letters to the assessee before the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee has duly replied those letters issued by the AO.
3. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that though the assesse has mentioned in the form 35 the ground for delay
ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha however, there is no application on behalf of the assesse for condonation of delay nor any other details or evidence was filed by the assessee in support of cause of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, in absence of any explanation on behalf of the assessee with documentary proof the mere mentioning of delay in the form 35 is not sufficient for condonation of delay. He has relied upon impugned order of the CIT(A).
We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The CIT(A) has though considered the reasons explained by the assessee in form 35 however, the same were not found to be satisfactory and consequently declined to condoned delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has given concluding finding in para 2.5 as under: “2.5. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, the basic principle emerges that the delay should be bonafide and there should not be any negligence on the part of the appellant. However in the appeal under consideration, the appellant has not submitted any evidence either along with the appeal or during appellate proceedings to establish the genuine hardship. The contention of the appellant is very vague and general and doesn't hold any merit. It is established law that ignorance of law is not a valid excuse and no relief can be given on this count. Therefore, the delay made in filing the appeal does not deserve to be condoned. Therefore, the delay is not condoned and appeal is rejected as unadmitted.”
It is pertinent to note that the impugned order has been passed by the CIT(A) without issuing a notice to the assessee to explain the cause of delay in filing the appeal. It is manifest from the impugned order that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Page 3 of 4
ITANo.499/Ind/2023 Seema Sinha assessee unilaterally without even giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain cause of delay. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assesse to explain cause of delay as well as on merits.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing on 18 .03.2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
