आदेश/ O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.01.2026/26.12.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16.

There is a delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.1561/CHNY/2026. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay, explaining the reasons for the same. It is stated that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that once the appeal against the quantum assessment order had been filed, wherein both jurisdictional and merits-related grounds were raised, there was no necessity to file a separate appeal against the penalty order passed by the CIT(A). Subsequently, upon being advised by the counsel that separate appeals are required to be filed against the penalty orders, as independent orders had been passed by the CIT(A), the assessee immediately preferred the present appeal with a delay of 20 days. On perusal of the reasons stated, we are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

At the very outset, we notice that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The FAA held that there was a delay of 449 days / 353 days in filing the appeals before him and that no reasonable cause had been shown for condoning the same. On perusal of the order of the FAA, we note that the assessee had filed petitions for condonation of delay explaining that against the assessment orders dated 21.03.2024, rectification applications had been filed within seven days, i.e., on 30.03.2024. The assessee was under the bona fide impression that the rectification applications would be considered and appropriate relief would be granted by the Assessing Officer. Since the rectification applications remained undisposed of and were still pending, the assessee ultimately filed the appeals before the FAA belatedly. However, the FAA was not convinced with the explanation offered and consequently dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA was neither willful nor deliberate, since the assessee was bona fide pursuing an alternative statutory remedy by way of rectification applications before the AO.

The Ld.DR supported the orders of the FAA.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits by refusing to condone the delay of 449 days / 353 days in filing the appeals before him. In our considered view, the assessee was bona fide pursuing an alternative remedy by filing rectification applications before the AO within a reasonable period. Therefore, the explanation offered by the assessee constitutes sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the FAA. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 449 days / 353 days in filing the appeals before the FAA.

ITA No.1560/CHNY/2026

At the very outset, we find that the assessee has filed a petition seeking admission of an additional legal ground. The additional ground relates to the validity of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. It is the contention of the assessee that since the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued beyond the period of six years prescribed u/s.149 of the Act, the same is barred by limitation and consequently the reassessment order passed pursuant thereto is liable to be quashed. In this regard, the Ld.AR placed on record a copy of the no