KAMLESH SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 was dismissed in-limine by the CIT(A) due to a 126-day delay in filing, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence for the stated reason of his father's ill health. The AO had reopened the assessment under Section 148 and made several additions, including for income from other sources, disallowances under Section 57 and Section 10, and an addition under Section 69.
Held
The ITAT held that the right to appeal is a valuable substantive right and should be viewed liberally. It found that the CIT(A) might not have provided a specific opportunity of being heard before rejecting the delay condonation. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision on the delay condonation application after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal due to unproven delay, the validity of the reassessment notice under Section 148, and the merits of various additions made by the AO.
Sections Cited
Section 10, Section 57, Section 69, Section 139(1), Section 144, Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148, Section 151A, Section 249(3), Section 250, Section 250(6B)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2020-21 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. That, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine, refusing to condone the delay, without appreciating the 1 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)
facts of the case, and therefore, the impugned appellate order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
That, on the facts and in law, notice u/s 148 dt. 28/03/2024 has been issued by Sri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee, ACIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur, i.e. by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO), and not under "automated allocation system' and therefore, the impugned notice is invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same is not in accordance with section 151A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order dt. 25/02/2025, pursuant to such invalid notice, is also invalid and bad in law and the order is liable to be quashed.
That, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the following additions made by AO:
i. Addition of Rs. 58,324.00 as Income from Other Sources; ii. Addition by way of disallowance of Rs. 9,89,256.00 u/s 57; iii. Addition of Rs. 9,19,253.00 claimed as exempt allowance u/s 10: iv. Addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000.00 u/s 69; and v. Addition of Rs. 39,497.00 as Short Term Capital Gain. All these additions are liable to be deleted.
That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or modify any ground of appeal.”
1 The 1st ground challenges the non-admission of appeal by rejecting the delay condonation application by the Ld. CIT(A). The 2nd ground, a legal ground, challenges the validity of reopening of assessment. The 3rd ground is in respect of merit of the additions made in the assessment order.
2 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed his original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year declaring income of Rs.32,40,500/-. Based on the information that the interest income of Rs.58,324/- as per Form No. 26AS of the assessee, investment of Rs.1,10,00,000/- in Time Deposit, etc., etc. did not get commensurate with the income disclosed in the original ITR, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) reopened the case under section 148 of the Act. The consequential assessment under section 147 rws 144 and 144B of the Act was completed at income of Rs.1,62,46,830/-, wherein following additions, in absence of any compliance on the part of the assessee, were made: SI. Description Amount (in INR)
Income as per Return of income filed (filed u/s.139(1)) Rs.32,40,500/-
Variation in respect of Rs.58,324/- as income from other Rs.58,324/- sources
Variation in respect of disallowance of Rs.9,89,256/- u/s Rs.9,89,256/- 57
Variation in respect of disallowance of Rs.9,19,253/-u/s Rs.9,19,253/- 10
Variation in respect of addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- u/s 69 Rs.1,10,00,000/-
Variation in respect of addition of Rs. 30,497/- on account Rs 30,407/- of STCG
Total income/Loss determined Rs.1,62.46,830/-
Aggrieved with the reassessment order, the assessee filed belated appeal (126 days) before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not admit the appeal as he was not 3 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)
satisfied with the condonation delay petition. The relevant para of the impugned order is reproduced as under:
“7. In view of the above, I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period can be admitted only if the appellant is able to establish that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the stipulated time. The power to condone delay is discretionary and can be exercised only when the appellate authority is satisfied that the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the appellant and despite exercise of due diligence.
In the present case, the appeal has been filed with a delay of 126 days. The appellant has stated that the delay occurred due to the ill health of his father. which allegedly affected his day-to-day activities and ability to attend to tax matters. However, the appellant has failed to substantiate this claim with any supporting documentary evidence. No medical records, hospital papers, prescriptions, or details indicating the nature of illness, period of treatment, or the exact duration for which the appellant was required to attend to his father's health have been furnished. Further, the appellant has not established how many days were actually spent in caregiving or how such circumstances prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.
it is observed that while personal difficulties may constitute a reasonable cause in appropriate cases, the appellant is required to demonstrate a direct nexus between the cause cited and the period of delay, supported by cogent and credible evidence. In the absence of such material, the explanation tendered remains vague and unsubstantiated and does not inspire confidence. The appellant has also failed to demonstrate that he acted with due diligence once the alleged difficulty ceased.
It is well settled that the burden to prove sufficient cause squarely lies on the appellant and that condonation of delay is not a matter of right. The law of limitation cannot be rendered meaningless by condoning delay on the basis of bald assertions unsupported by evidence. In the present case, the 4 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)
appellant has not discharged the onus cast upon him under section 249(3) of the Act to establish sufficient cause for the delay of 126 days.
Accordingly, in absence of any convincing or acceptable justification supported by evidence, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The appeal, having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, is therefore not admitted and is dismissed in limine.”
Before us, the assessee was not represented by anyone. Therefore, we heard Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, who argued the case vehemently and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR at length and have perused the material available on the record. We have perused the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notification bearing F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 250(6B) of the Act. We have also taken note of the categorical observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that the justification for condonation of delay filed by the assessee was neither genuine nor valid. After thoughtful consideration of the impugned order, we are unable to infer that whether the Ld. CIT(A) has provided any specific opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the delay condonation petition on the reasoning that the said petition was not duly corroborated with supporting evidences. The right of appeal is a valuable right and unless expressly taken away or abandoned, it could not be held that the appellant had abandoned or lost such right by implication [Indian Aluminium Co Ltd. Vs. CIT 162 ITR 788 (Cal.)]. The right to appeal is not merely a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. The Act read with the 5 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)
Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 put specific restrictions and limitations on the scope and manner of exercise of the right of filing appeal and also limitations & powers of the Appellate Authorities. Considering the importance of the right to appeal of the appellant assessee, since it bestows upon him an opportunity of getting a wrong undone and to mitigate the possibility of financial loss, the right to appeal should be viewed from a broad-based liberal perspective and not by applying a strict, constricted and myopic view. The decision whether the right to appeal is available in a particular circumstance should be guided by the form and not substance of the order appealed against [CIT Vs. Ashoka Engineering Co. 63 Taxman 510/194 ITR 645 (SC)].
After thoughtful consideration of the material available on the record, we are of the view that the appellant assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliance if any. Therefore, considering all facts of the case. afore-stated observations and without offering any comment on merit of the case, we, in the interest of justice, deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the fate of delay condonation application afresh in accordance with the law and the Notification F. No. S.O. 3296 (E), dated 25-9-2020 after hearing the assessee. The case on merit thereafter, if required, shall be decided as per the law. We order accordingly. The appellant assessee should ensure compliances during the remitted appellate proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to say that the Ld.
6 Kamlesh Sharma vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)
CIT(A) is also required to provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/03/2026. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 06/03/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""थ"/ The Respondent
The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur
7
