Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 142 days against an order that dismissed her appeal as time-barred. The assessee explained the delay was due to her lack of knowledge of tax laws and her reliance on a professional who failed to inform her of the proceedings, leading to a substantial tax demand and seizure of her bank account.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause and reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained and therefore liable for condonation. Whether the lower appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without providing an opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
148, 143(3), 153, 151, 143(2), 250, 253(3), 156
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH
आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 23.08.2024 for the AY 2012-13. The assessee in her appeal raised the following grounds: -
ITANo.1769/Del/2025
“That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the AY 2012-13 dated 23.08.2024 is illegal, bad in law, and in contravention of the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the same deserves to be set aside.
2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the NFAC/CIT(A) is patently illegal, erroneous and bad in law as it suffers from violation of principle of natural justice.
3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limne considering it to be barred by limitation.
4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay.
5. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation without appreciating the fact that no notice of demand was served upon the assessee.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of Ld. Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act dated 27.12.2019 without appreciating the fact that the assessment order is itself barred by limitation as no notice of demand was served upon the assessee within the limitation prescribed u/s 153.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act dated 27.12.2019 without appreciating the fact that the reopening/s 148 is itself illegal, erroneous and bad in law as it was done on ITANo.1769/Del/2025
the basis of incorrect information, borrowed satisfaction without application of independent mind and was merely a verification exercise.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act dated 27.12.2019 without appreciating the fact that the reopening u/s 148 is itself illegal, erroneous and bad in law as it was done without obtaining approval of prescribed authority u/s 151.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of the Ld. AO passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act dated 27.12.2019 without appreciating the fact the approval granted u/s 151 of the Act is mechanical in nature.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 as affirmed by the NFAC/CIT(A) is illegal and void ab initio as it was passed without serving the mandatory notice of sec. 143(2) upon the assessee.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in affirming the addition of Rs.80,60,500/- made by the Ld. AO vide order dated 27.12.2019 considering it to be long term capital gain on the sale of property.
That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, NFAC/CIT(A) erred in affirming the addition made by the Ld. AO which was made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, resign, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice.”
ITANo.1769/Del/2025
This appeal is filed by the Assessee with a delay of 142 days and the assessee filed petition for condonation of delay explaining the delay in filing before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the petition. The assessee explained the delay in her petition for condonation as under: - ITANo.1769/Del/2025 ITANo.1769/Del/2025 ITANo.1769/Del/2025
ITANo.1769/Del/2025 2.1 In view of the above explanation furnished by the Assessee, we find that there is sufficient cause and reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted.
3. Coming to the merits in the appeal of the assessee Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limne holding it to be barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, if any, in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in this case the AO never served any notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act making the assessment order as barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity to the assessee to make her submissions.
Ld. DR has no serious objection.
Considering the rival submissions, perusing the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ITANo.1769/Del/2025 Ld. CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay, if any and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2025