Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 1,16,13,114/- under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B, against a returned nil income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 454-day delay in filing, which the assessee attributed to non-service of the assessment order.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 454-day delay in filing the first appeal, citing the principle of liberal interpretation for sufficient cause and the assessee's claim of non-service of the assessment order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a 454-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) and the validity of an ex-parte assessment when the assessment order was allegedly not served.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
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 29/09/2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20.
None appeared for the Assessee, an application for adjournment has been filed. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we reject the adjournment application and deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Department's Representative and perusing the material available on record.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 06/12/2023 u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 r.w. Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by computing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 1,16,13,114/-/- as against returned Nil income filed by the Assesseeby making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06/12/2023, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/09/2025 , dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Department's Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 454 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal.
We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee preferred Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 454 days.
As per the Assessee, the cause of the delay was that, the Assessment order has never been served upon the Assessee through post or by any other mode, which caused delay in filing the First Appeal.However, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal.
It is expected from the Assessee to file the Appeal on time, if the cause for delay is bona- fide and beyond the control of the Assessee, the same can be construed as sufficient cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the Appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay.
In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.
Katiji& Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the fact that the Assessment order has never been served upon the Assessee as claimed by him, by applying liberal view,we condone the delay of 454 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the assessment order also has been passed ex-parte, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a direction to frame de-novo assessment in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the Assessee.
In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2026