Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 869 days due to personal reasons including depression following his wife's death, the incapacitation of one of his children, and his father's demise. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost, and noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper hearing. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without a hearing is sustainable.
Sections Cited
144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Lokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO H. No. 314, Banwari Vatika Ward-1(2)(4) Gupta Colony, Near Transprot Nagar Mart, Uttar Pradesh PAN: AVPPK1128H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 27/09/2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
There is a delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the Assessee was suffering under the depression due to expire of his wife and she left two minor children, out one child is 100% percent handicapped and after that his father expired. Under the depression and under the financial crises he was not in this position to pursue his case in any authorities. Thus, sought for condoning the delay in filing the present Appeal.
Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that, there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay, thus sought for dismissal of the present Appeal on delay in latches.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record on the issue of delay in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee in the Affidavit for condonation of delay contended that the Assessee was suffering under the depression due to expire of his wife and she left two minor children, out one child is 100% percent handicapped and after that his father expired. Under the depression and under the financial crises he was not in this position to pursue his case in any authorities, therefore, the Assessee could not file the Appeal on time before the Tribunal.
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 above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal by imposing cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall be paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF).
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 31/12/2019 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making addition of Rs. 2,13,85,026/- under Section 69A the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/12/2019, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/09/2022, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.
The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of Lower authorities sought for dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Appeal has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025