RISHNOOR KAUR,IRELAND V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH

ITA 476/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rishnoor Kaur, a non-resident Indian, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed her appeal on the grounds of limitation without entering into the merits. The original assessment treated the entire sale consideration of a property as taxable income, raising a demand of Rs.45,17,840. The delay in filing the appeal was due to administrative lapses by her counsel's office, which were beyond her control. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay reasonable and consistent with the circumstances, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay as per Supreme Court precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787701 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT DHIMAN; VIRTUAL MODE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.476/Chd/ 2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rishnoor Kaur 33, Abbeydale Crescent Balgaddy, The Oaks Lucan, Dublin, K78D882, Ireland-240000 बनाम The DCIT (International Taxation) Chandigarh ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ATAPK3222D अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ankit Dhiman, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/11/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 18/11/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 24/01/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay of 374 days in filing the first appeal and dismissed the appeal in-limine, without entering into the merits of the issues raised. The assessee has challenged this dismissal. 2. The assessment in the present case was completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act on 12.12.2018, wherein the Ld. AO treated the entire sale consideration of a property as taxable income and raised a demand of Rs.45,17,840/-. The assessee, who resides abroad in Ireland, handed over the assessment order and related papers to her counsel in India in time. As explained in the detailed condonation petition, the papers were inadvertently mixed up with other files by the office assistant of the counsel Printed from counselvise.com 2 and, during the shifting of the counsel’s office premises, the original papers were weeded out unintentionally. When the assessee’s bank account was later frozen, she contacted her counsel and the lapse was discovered. A request for a certified copy of the assessment order was then made to the AO on 12.02.2020, which was duly furnished, and the appeal was thereafter filed on 28.02.2020. 3. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), declined the request for condonation of delay holding that the assessee failed to furnish a day-to-day explanation for the delay and proceeded to dismiss the appeal solely on limitation. 4. Aggrieved by the non-condonation and non-adjudication, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 5. During the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay was fully explained, bona fide and neither deliberate nor intentional. It was emphasised that the assessee is a non-resident and had acted diligently by handing over the papers to her counsel. The subsequent misplacement of documents and the shifting of office premises were administrative lapses wholly beyond her control. Reference was made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil to contend that the expression “sufficient cause” requires a liberal, justice-oriented interpretation. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but fairly submitted that if the Tribunal finds the explanation acceptable, the matter may be restored for fresh adjudication. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The explanation furnished by the assessee is reasonable, consistent and supported by the surrounding circumstances, including the fact that she resides abroad and relied on her counsel for all procedural compliances. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 events narrated in the condonation application were neither challenged nor disproved by the Department. There is nothing to indicate that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or intended to gain any advantage. In these circumstances, the assessee has satisfactorily demonstrated “sufficient cause” for the delay within the meaning of section 249(3), as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A strictly pedantic or hyper-technical approach, as adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), is not in consonance with the settled principles governing condonation of delay, nor conducive to the advancement of substantial justice. 7.1 We, therefore, hold that the delay of 374 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal at the threshold without adjudicating the merits, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7.2 Further, having regard to the fact that the assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and important jurisdictional issues have been raised by the assessee, and also considering that the assessee is a non- resident, We find it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the entire matter to the file of the AO. The AO shall re-examine the issues afresh, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present all relevant evidence including those relating to the cost of acquisition, service of notice under section 148, jurisdictional objections, and all other grounds raised. 7.3 The AO shall also strictly follow the procedure prescribed under section 144C of the Act, wherever applicable, keeping in view the assessee’s status as a non-resident and any consequential requirement of issuing a draft assessment order, providing the assessee a further opportunity before the Dispute Resolution Panel, and completing the assessment thereafter in accordance with law. 7.4 The assessee is directed to co-operate in the remand proceedings and furnish all relevant material as may be required for effective adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com 4 8. In view of the above, the delay stands condoned, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "