KAWAL PREET KAUR,LUCKNOW V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPT., NFAC

ITA 646/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kawal Preet Kaur against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed her appeal as time-barred without considering the merits. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer included unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 1,93,31,034 in the assessee's bank account. The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to technical issues and a medical condition, which the CIT(A) found unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of her appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately verified the assessee's claims and thus remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791669 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R.N. SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR TRIPATHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW श्री क ुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री ननखखल चौिरी, लेखा सदस्य क े समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.646/LKW/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kawal Preet Kaur Gopal Kheda, Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow-227305. v. Assessment Unit, NFAC Income Tax Department 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Narhi, Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. PAN:CBDPK1748K अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date of hearing: 25 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date of pronouncement: 12 12 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.07.2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the Appellant has received a copy of the above-said First appellate Order dated 11.07.2025 VIDE DIN _ ITBA/NFAC/S/250/202526/1078409163(1) received on 11.07.2025. 2. That the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC along with an application for condonation of delay, supported by medical certificate and documentary evidence. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, without proper appreciation of the cause shown, rejected the condonation application vide order dated 11.07.2025, thereby dismissing the appeal as time-barred without entering into the merits of the case. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.646/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 6 4. That the rejection is contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which have consistently held that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction to advance the cause of substantial justice. 5. That the disputed Amount in the Appeal is Rs.1,71,34,081.00 Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC does not consider the facts of the case and wrongly rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC rejected the application for condonation of delay by order dated 11.07.2025 and refused to admit it on ground of limitation. The Appellant aggrieved by the said rejection and constrained to prefer this appeal under Section 253 (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The appellant challenging the reasonableness and legality of the rejection of the application and seeking extension of time and admission of the appeal on Merits.” 2. At the time of hearing, it is noted that the appeal is barred by limitation for 2 days as reported by the Registry. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the assessee received a copy of the impugned order on 11.07.2025, and the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 09.09.2025. However, the appeal was ultimately filed on 11.09.2025. The assessee contends that due to technical glitches, the appeal could not be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time. It is further stated that, owing to system-related issues, the OTP required for filing the appeal was not received on the assessee’s email. Therefore, the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons, and the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause” from filing the appeal within the limitation period. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has thoroughly been negligent and did not prosecute the appeal even filed before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Heard, the Ld. Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on records. We find that there is a small delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. One of the reasons stated in the condonation application is that, due to technical/system- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.646/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 related issues, the OTP required for e-filing the appeal was not received on the assessee’s email. This contention has not been rebutted by the Revenue. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by “reasonable cause” from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. We, therefore, condone the delay of two days and admit the appeal for adjudication on the basis of the materials available on record 4. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of the limitation. It is stated that, due to technical glitches, the appeal could not be filed in time before the Ld. CIT(A), and this fact was duly informed to the Ld. CIT(A). He also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeal without appreciating the reasonable and genuine cause of delay as explained by the assessee. Thus, he prayed that the delay may kindly be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. Heard, the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen from the records that the assessment was passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act. Due to non-furnishing of a reply to the statutory notices, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 1,93,31,034/-. The basis of this addition is that the assessee had made time deposits amounting to Rs. 1,93,31,034/-, and in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.646/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 6 absence of verification of the sources of these deposits, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 11.07.2025 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “2.8 The appellant in Column No.15 of form 35 has stated that he was suffering from severe medical condition that required prolonged treatment and recovery. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed medical certificate showing illness from the period from 19.04.2023 to 16.09.2023 and fit from 17.09.2023. Carefully examining the same, it reveals that the appellant was sick only for the period exactly between the passing of date of order and filing the appeal. The medical certificate seems to be fabricated prepared only for the condonation of delay. Therefore, the said certificate cannot be considered. Hence, the delay of 148 days cannot be accepted. 2.8.1 In view of the above, the explanation submitted by the appellant does not have substance and that the appellant has not discharged the onus of “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 249 of the I. T. Act. Hence, the delay in filing of appeal after 148 days cannot be accepted. 2.9. Hence, in view of these facts and on the strength of the judicial decisions referred on the pre-pages the delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act.” 7. It is seen from the record that there was no effective representation on behalf of the assessee before the lower authorities. The contention of the assessee is that she did not receive any notices issued by the authorities due to certain technical issues related to her email. The Assessing Officer noted that cash deposits amounting to Rs.1,93,31,034/- were made in the Bank of Baroda account; however, there was no compliance with the statutory notices issued. It is further noted that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Before the Ld. CIT(A), there was a delay in filing the appeal. The assessee had stated that medical exigency was for this delay, as recorded in para no. 2.8 of the impugned order. For the sake of clarity, the contents of para no. 2.8 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.646/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 6 “2.8 The appellant in Column No.15 of form 35 has stated that he was suffering from severe medical condition that required prolonged treatment and recovery. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed medical certificate showing illness from the period from 19.04.2023 to 16.09.2023 and fit from 17.09.2023. Carefully examining the same, it reveals that the appellant was sick only for the period exactly between the passing of date of order and filing the appeal. The medical certificate seems to be fabricated prepared only for the condonation of delay. Therefore, the said certificate cannot be considered. Hence, the delay of 148 days cannot be accepted.” 8. In the light of the above, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) did not conduct any independent inquiry regarding the genuineness of the medical certificates. Rather, he rejected the assessee’s request for condonation without verifying the correctness of the claim. Under the facts of the present case, we deem it fit and proper and to sub-serve the interest of principles of natural justice to set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the grounds afresh after verifying to correctness of the claim. Needless to say that the assessee would provide all the information which is relevant and necessary for adjudication of grounds of appeal. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2025. Sd/- [ननखखल चौिरी] Sd/- [क ुल भारत] [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] DATED: 12/12/2025 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.646/LKW/2025 Page 6 of 6 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR 5. Guard File Printed from counselvise.com "