Quasi-judicial authorities should adopt a justice-oriented approach rather than a hyper-technical one when considering condonation of delay, particularly when notices were issued during the COVID-19 exclusion period as mandated by the Supreme Court.

ORDER

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI;

This twin appeals are filed u/s 253(1) f the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] against DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070778714 & 1070778764(1) both dt. 31/11/2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Act which in turn respectively dealt with assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act & penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2014-15 [‘AY’]

2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals are common & identical and issue dealt therein are inter- related & interwoven, on rival party’s common request and for the sake of brevity & convenience, both these appeals are heard together for being disposed-off by common & consolidated order.

3. Tersely stated, facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual who was identified as non-filer. Upon receipt of information from ITBA that, the assessee earned/received rental income & contractual receipts/payment worth ₹2,86,40,596/- against which tax at source was deducted, after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from competent authority the case of the assessee vide notice dt. 20/03/2018 issued u/s 148 of the Act was reopened. The assessee vide separate notices & letters was given multiple opportunities to explain nature of such receipt and taxation thereof which went unattended. In the event vide notice dt. 26/09/2018 the assessee was called upon to show cause as to why addition of equivalent amounts of total receipts not be treated as income. Upon assessee’s failure to respond to SCN the Ld. AO advanced the proceedings and brought entire receipts to tax as the income & assessed accordingly vide an order dt. 29/10/2018 framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

4. Pursuant to the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, a penalty proceeding vide notice dt. 29/10/2018 issued u/s 274 the assessee was called upon to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be not imposed for concealment of income. When show case notice remained unattended, the Ld. AO granted further opportunity vide notice 04/04/2016 to make good the defence. The assessee did neither replied to notice nor made any written submission in rebuttal. In the event, the Ld. AO advanced & culminated the proceedings ex-parte imposing a penalty equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded in relation to income assessed in reopened assessment in an order dt. 30/04/2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment as well ex-parte penalty order, the assessee filed separate appeals u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act before the Ld. NFAC, on 19/05/2020 which were dismissed in limine on the grounds of limitation as time barred.

6. Aggrieved by the ex-parte dismissal of twin appeals by the Ld. NFAC, the assessee filed present bunch of appeals respectively u/s 253(1) of the Act.

7. We have heard rival party’s common submission on a limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of twin appeals by the Ld. NFAC on the ground of limitation and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused the material concerning in adequate opportunity granted for effectively explaining the delay with sufficient evidences.

ITA NO. 028/JAB/2025

8. As we note that, the first appeal against order of assessment dt. 29/10/2018 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was filed before the Ld. first appellate authority on 19/05/2020 u/s 246A r