SANGAM TRADERS 60-GOLDEN AVENUE SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PATHANKOT SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the liquor business, filed a return declaring Rs. 2,05,410, which was selected for scrutiny. Due to non-response, the AO completed an ex-parte assessment, adding Rs. 10.76 crores. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a 209-day delay in filing, without providing an opportunity to explain the delay.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. Citing medical reasons for the delay, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation of delay and then adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
The key legal issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing an appeal solely on grounds of delay without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay, especially when medical grounds were cited.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 144B, Section 250, Section 249(3), Section 68, Section 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC,
Delhi dated 28.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, (Assessment Unit) passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of
the Act, 1961 dated 20.09.2022.
2 I.T.A. No. 706/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 2. The assessee has taken 8 (eight) grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 challenging
the addition of Rs. 10.76 crores u/s 144 of the Act and sustained and in first appeal, the
main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the
appeal without admitting the same for adjudication on merits of the case, on the
grounds that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 209 days and dismissing the same
in limine without allowing any opportunity to explain the delay before rejection.
Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee is engaged in liquor
business and has declared total income of Rs.2,05,410/- in regular return which is
selected for scrutiny under CASS. In course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, in
absence of any response from the assessee to various notices issued by the AO the
assessment has been completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs.10.78 crores (with
additions on various issues including disallowance of direct and indirect expenses, and
addition u/s 68 and 69A, on account of unsecured loans, unexplained cash deposits
and capital introduction, etc.).
The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been
dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) without admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits
due to the reasons that the appeal has been belatedly filed by 209 (two hundred nine)
days. The reasons stated by the assessee in Form No. 35 for delayed filing of the appeal
3 I.T.A. No. 706/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 was not found to be satisfactory and as such, the delay has not been condoned and the
appeal has been dismissed as per provisions of section 249(3) of the Act.
Before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that it was incumbent
on the part of the ld. first appellate authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to
the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay before refusing to admit the appeal,
which has not been done in this case. He further submitted that the appellate authority
should have examined whether sufficient cause exists or has been shown by the party
for condoning the delay because the context of condonation of delay should be given
a liberal interpretation so as to render substantial justice. He further submitted that the asssessee met with an accident on 7th Aug., 2022 and was advised complete bed rest
for a period of three months, (in support of which he has furnished documentary
evidences of Sukh Sadan Hospital & Traumsa Centre Pvt. Ltd., Dalhousi Road,
Pathankot along with other medical documents).
He submitted that the ld. CIT(A) before refusing to admit the appeal for delay
in filing the same should have allowed an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to
explain the reasons for the delay and since the assessee was prevented by sufficient
cause on medical grounds in filing the appeal, the delay of 209 (two hundred nine) days
in filing the appeal should be condoned and the appeal should be admitted for hearing
on merits.
4 I.T.A. No. 706/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, considering the
medical certificates produced, he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the
ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and
we find that the ld. first appellate authority was not legally justified in refusing to admit
the appeal for adjudication on merits without giving an opportunity to the assessee to
explain the reasons for the delay and to prove his case with supporting documentary
evidences.
As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the
ld. first appellate authority to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the reasons
for the delay in filing the appeal and if sufficient cause is shown to exist, the appeal
may be admitted and adjudicated upon on the grounds contained in Form No. 35, on
merits of the case.
We also direct the assessee to file the necessary documentary evidences and
submissions explaining the delay and to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left
open.
5 I.T.A. No. 706/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court as on 22.01.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
