Facts of the Case

The assessee, an individual, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessment had been completed ex-parte under sections 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income at ₹56,11,070 by making addition of the same amount under section 69A on account of unexplained cash deposits.

The assessee’s first appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine on the ground of delay of approximately 117 days in filing the appeal. The request for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was treated as inadmissible without adjudication on merits.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation.
  2. Whether the explanation furnished by the assessee constituted “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay.
  3. Whether dismissal of appeal without examining merits violated principles of natural justice.

 Petitioner’s Arguments

The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and occurred due to reasonable and bona fide circumstances, which were duly communicated to the appellate authority. It was submitted that dismissal of the appeal without condonation resulted in grave injustice, as the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to contest the substantial addition made under section 69A.

 Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and contended that the assessee failed to furnish day-to-day explanation of delay and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirement of “sufficient cause”.

Court Order / Findings

The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) adopted a strict and technical approach in refusing to condone the delay and failed to examine whether denial of condonation would result in injustice. It was observed that the assessee stood to gain no advantage by filing the appeal belatedly and that there was no finding of deliberate negligence or mala fide intent.

Relying on the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector of Land Acquisition vs MST Katiji (167 ITR 471) and subsequent judicial pronouncements advocating a justice-oriented and pragmatic approach, the Tribunal held that refusal to condone the delay resulted in miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits by passing a speaking order after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal reiterated that while existence of “sufficient cause” is mandatory for condonation of delay, appellate authorities must adopt a liberal approach where refusal to condone would result in denial of substantial justice. Technical considerations should not override adjudication on merits, particularly in cases involving ex-parte assessments and substantial additions.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770632619_JIYAUDDINKHANMAHARAJGANJUTTARPRADESH.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.