Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 142 days, citing issues with the online portal and Covid conditions. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the matter should be remitted for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sapna Bansal, vs. ITO, Ward 5(3)(3), A-1/401, Galaxo Apartments, Noida. Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Extension, Delhi. (PAN : AAKPB3157D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pratiyush Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Order : 10.09.2025 O R D E R
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 19.02.2025 for AY 2012-13.
Brief facts of the case are, at the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) due to non-compliance from the assessee side. Based on the information AO, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. He brought to our notice that the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A) with a delay of 142 days and pointed out before the ld. CIT (A) that the appeal could not be filed due to the fact that earlier the online portal of the department was not functioning properly and subsequently due to Covid conditions, there is a delay of filing of the appeal and requested the ld. CIT (A) to condone the delay. However, ld. CIT (A) after going through the reasons advanced by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal did not condone the delay and accordingly, appeal is not admitted for adjudication. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT (A). He submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) may be condoned and the matter may be remitted back to Assessing Officer to decide issue afresh on merits with the prayer to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue objected to the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee and relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. After going through the submissions made by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) and reiterated before the Bench, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) is to be condoned. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. Further, upon careful consideration, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter requires denovo assessment after considering the facts on record. Therefore, we remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for which Ld. DR has no objection. Assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. We hold and direct accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of September, 2025.