Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which dismissed their appeal. The assessee sought condonation for a delay of 169 days, attributing it to a communication lapse with their Chartered Accountant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 169 days, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to delay with sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and without deciding all grounds on merit.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned? Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice and without deciding the grounds on merit?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 69A, 115BBE
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
(A.Y. 2017-18) Shivam Jewelmart Private Vs DCIT Limited. 1094/1167, 3rd Floor Central Circle-14 KuchaMahajani, New Delhi ARA Centre, Jhandewalan, PAN: AAQCS3302Q Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Neeraj Mangla, CA Revenue by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 ORDER
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Delhi, 26 (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ for short), dated 20/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
There is a delay of 169 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an affidavit explaining the delay in filing the Appeal contending that while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) e- mail id of the Chartered Accountant has been mentioned in Form No. 35 however, after passing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the said CA has not inform the Assessee and the Assessee came to know only after downloading the order from e-filing portal and immediately preferred the present Appeal, which resulted in delay in filing the present Appeal and the same is not intentional. 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 delay in filing the Appeal contending that while filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) e-mail id of the Chartered Accountant has been mentioned in Form No. 35 however, after passing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the said CA has not inform the Assessee and the Assessee came to know only after downloading the order from e-filing portal and immediately preferred the present Appeal, 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 169 days in filing the present Appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 22/03/2022 under Section 147 r.w. Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making addition u/s 69A of the Act r.w Section 115BBE of the Act.Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22/03/2022, the Assessee preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/08/2024 , 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.
9.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