Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) but there was a delay of 153 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the condonation of delay application, finding that the assessee failed to explain the delay with material evidence. The assessee argued that the delay was not deliberate and the AO had passed an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days, finding sufficient cause in the interest of justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI.
(Assessment Year: 2015-16) Om Narain Sharma, vs. ITO, Ward 45 (1), A – 21,Exin, D.K. Road, Delhi. Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi – 110 059. (PAN : DFLPS0932B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Arpit Gaur, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date of Order : 07.11.2025 ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 28.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that assessee has failed to explain the delay of 153 days with material evidence on day-to-day basis.He submitted that ld. CIT (A) was unjustified in refusing to condone the delay ignoring the facts of the case and the material argument of the assessee that the assessee tends to gain nothing by filing the appeal late and the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate.Thus, he submitted that the assessee has sufficient and bona fide cause and the delay, if any, is neither intentional nor due to negligence. Further, he submitted that the ld. CIT (A) failed to adjudicate the case on merits. Ld. AR also submitted that the AO has passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act ex-parte. Accordingly, he prayed that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) may be condoned and the appeal be restored to the file of AO to decide afresh.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same and submitted that the delay is inordinate and should not be condoned.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee,we are of the view that there was sufficient cause in delay filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), hence, in the interest of justice, we condone the same. We also observe that the AO passed the assessment order ex-parte. Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct assessee to make proper submissions and appear before the AO on the date of hearing and cooperate with the tax authorities. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.