आदेश/ORDER

Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by Shri Balaji Kannan (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) both dated 01.08.2015 for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17. Since both the appeals are filed by the same assessee and identical issues are involved, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of four days in filing both the appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed separate petitions for condonation of delay along with separate copies of affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. AR submitted that during the relevant period, the assessee was suffering from viral fever and was under medical treatment and was advised complete rest by the doctor. Due to the said circumstances, the assessee was not in a position to travel and meet his counsel for the purpose of filing the appeals within the prescribed time. In support of the said contention, the assessee has also placed on record the medical certificate issued by the doctor. It has been further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits.

3. Per contra, the Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the condonation of delay.

4. We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeals within the prescribed time. The delay involved is marginal and properly explained. It is a settled principle that matters should be decided on merits rather than on technicalities, particularly when the delay is short and there is no mala fide intention attributable to the assessee. In view of the present facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Accordingly, the delay of four days in filing the appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

ITA No 1850/Hyd/2025 for A.Y 2015-16:

5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law;

2) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271E of the I.T. Act of Rs.2,00,000/- without considering the facts on record;

3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the assessment year involved is 2015-16 and the penalty order was passed on 22.08.2024 after a period of 8 years ;

4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have found that no assessment is made against the appellant in respect of the assessment year 2015- 16 and, therefore, no penalty is leviable;

5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that the transaction is genuine and the facts on record show that the appellant is prevented by sufficient reason in not receiving the amount through banking channels;

6) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing;”

6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in pipes and other hardware materials. During the course of assessment proceedings in the case of another person, namely Shri Bhaskara Siddaiah Chetty, it was observed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. A.O”) of that person that the assessee had repaid a loan of Rs.2 lakhs in cash to the said person during the Assessment Year 2015–16. Based on the said information, penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were initiated by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (“Ld. JCIT”) in the case of the assessee. After considering the submissions of the a