NEERAJ SARAF,DELHI V. ITO,WARD-28(1), DELHI

ITA 3579/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Neeraj Saraf, the appellant, who challenged the order of the NFAC which had dismissed his appeal as being filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The original dispute arose from the Assessing Officer's order for the assessment year 2015-16, which was based on the non-filing of income tax returns by Saraf and subsequent penalty proceedings. The NFAC dismissed Saraf's appeal without considering the merits, solely on the grounds of delay. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons for the delay provided by Saraf, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the NFAC for a decision on the substantive issues raised in the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669213 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Period of limitation
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E” NEWDELHI BEFORESHRISUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3579/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Neeraj Saraf Saraf Projects ld. 904, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building 19 Kastruba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi- 110001 Vs. ITO Ward- 28 (1) Delhi PAN No.ABKPS7232F (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR JM: The assesseepreferred the appeal, challenging the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.06.2025 2 NFAC), Delhi passed by theAssessing Officer order dated 21.03.2023 for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 249 days without considering that there was a sufficient cause in not filing the appeal on time. 2. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is a perverse order, as the same has been passed in a haste and hurried manner, without giving the appellant a sufficient opportunity to substantiate the reason for delay in filing the appeal. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in impliedly confirming he additions made by the ld. AO aggregating to Rs.1,15,00,000/- on account of cash deposit payment of credit card bills contractual payment and gain on the sale of immovable property. 3. The appeal is filed by 2 days delay and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. We, have given a thoughtfulconsideration to the reasons mentioned in the application forthe condonation of the delay. We areof the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented byreasonable and sufficient cause for not 3 filing the appeal withinthe period of limitation, therefore, in the interest of justice thedelay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual has not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. Notice u/s. 148 has been issued on 30.03.2022. In response of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in referred “the Act”) the assessee has not filed his return for the assessment year 2015-16. The source of income of the assessee is not known as assessee did not file ITR for any assessment year as information available on record. The Assessing Officer has passed the order and imitated penalty proceedings. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before NFAC. The Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act, without expressing any opinion on merit of the facts. 5. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no sufficient cause has beenshown by the assessee for condone the delay in filling theappeal. He further stated that the appeal was rightly dismissedby the Ld. NFAC. 6. The assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A) beyond time limit and moved the application for condonation of delay but the Ld. 4 NFAC without condoning the delay dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal with in time. The Ld. NFAC should have condone the delay and should have heard the appeal on merit, because the assessee has shown the sufficient cause not filing the appeal within time, therefore, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. NFAChaving been satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the assessee before the said authority and the matter isremand back to the Ld. NFAC to decide as a fresh according tolaw after giving the opportunity of the being heard to theassessee. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. NFAC. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/06/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Dated: 24 June,2025 “Neha, Sr. PS” "