TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t "Ld.CIT(A)"] dated 01.12.2025, for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. "The Appellant objects to the order dated 1 December 2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'], for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: 1. Dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant by rejecting condonation of delay 1.1 The Appellant submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the application relating to condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay was without ade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.2 The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal as it may be advised." 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and records are perused. The Learned Authorised Representative ('Ld. AR') of the assessee fairly submits that, there is the delay of 636 days in filling the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The Assessing Officer ('AO') levied penalty under Section 270A for under reporting income vide order dated 14.02.2023. However, the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was filed only on 14.11.2024, resulted in the delay of 636 days. The delay before the Ld.CIT(A) wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities. The assessee while filling the appeal before CIT(A) filed detailed application for seeking condonation of delay. The contents of the application for condonation of delay is recorded by CIT(A) in Paragraph 2 on page no. 2 to 4 of his order. The Ld.CIT(A) held that the reasons furnished by the assessee for delay is not acceptable as it lacks sufficient merit to condone the delay. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is not going to be benefitted by filling appeal belatedly. The assessee is interested in pursuing her case on merits. The assessee is an honest tax-payer and offered taxable income of more than Rs. 20.00 Crores and paid due tax. Otherwise, there was no m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated certain case law referred and relied by the assessee in her application for condonation of delay. We find that the assessee is a well-known film artist. The assessee while filling the return of income has declared more than Rs. 20.00 Crores income and has paid the tax. The return of income was filed within due date. The AO while passing the assessment order made certain disallowances consisting of expenditure incurred on apparels and accessories, beauty and fitness, foreign travelling, shopping expenses, travels & tours, on PR activities, salary to security guards, gift expenses, hotel expenses, flight maintenance expenses etc. aggregating to Rs. 4,64,46,339/-. The AO while passing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res. No doubt that the assessee is a well-known film artist, yet she has to depend upon the legal consultant for taking remedial action/ compliances in case of tax matters. We find that the, assessee was represented by Mr. P.K. Dey (CA) who suffered severe covid-10 infection and ultimately died in February 2024. We find that there is well-known principle under Law of Limitation that when technical consideration and cause of substantial justice are kept against each other, then the cause of substantial justice may be preferred / provided there is no intentional or deliberate delay in filling the appeal. On considering the totality of the fact, we are of the view that the delay in filling the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was not intentional. H....