Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order that computed income at Rs. 3,94,60,000/- after an addition for unexplained cash deposit. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee's appeal due to a delay of 214 days in filing, without hearing the Assessee or condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the Assessee and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without a proper hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without affording the Assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and be heard.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
(A.Y 2015-16) Mrs. Surekha Sharma Vs. Income Tax Department 639, Sector-10A, Gurgaon- Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, 122001, Haryana Haryana, PAN: AFEPD0015P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. None Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/11/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 17/02/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 26/03/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 3,94,60,000/- as against NIL income filed by the Assessee by making addition u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/03/2023, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 17/02/2025, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches of 214 days in filing the First Appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17/02/2025, Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
None appeared for the Assessee. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perused the material available on record.
The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Assessee has not filed any application nor assigned any reason in Form No. 35 narrating the sufficient cause in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and not stated any sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the Appealon delay in latches, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. Further, the Appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the Assessee has not sought condonation of delay in form No. 35. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings and in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Assessee to explain the delay of 214 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue of limitation liberally and decide the Appeal in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.