ANURAG,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD 1, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 298/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 April 2022AY 2011-20123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the first appellate authority. The delay should be condoned, and the appeal should be decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed ex-parte due to a delay of 175 days. The assessee claimed non-receipt of the assessment order and notices, and lack of opportunity for a hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to non-receipt of assessment orders and notices, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Hearing: 18.04.2022

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12 vide order dated 17.12.2021.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without considering the fact the assessee is an illiterate agriculturist and has no knowledge of law.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in confirming the action of the Ld. AO without admitting the additional evidences filled by the assessee before the Ld CIT(A).

3. That the Ld. CIT has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of Ld AO without appreciating the cash flow statement of the assessee and affidavit filed by the assessee and his father for various transactions.”

3. From the perusal of the appellate order, it is seen that NFAC passed an ex-parte order and has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal was delayed by 175 days. From the perusal of the order, it is seen that the assessee has stated as under :- “No notice was served on assessee. Assessment was done without giving opportunity of hearing u/s 144/147. However assessee had received penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and 271F for the AY 2011-12 as on18.06.2019. Then assessee came to know about the said assessment order ie passed u/s 144/147. Hence, there should have natural justice of hearing opportunity but not given. Assessment order is done u/s 144/147. Now assessee is seeking condonation for delay filing on the above said reason due to non receipt of order done u/s 144/147 and non receipt of any notice on account of assessment proceeding for the AY 2011-12. Further assessee had taken assessment order copy from the income tax office ward no 1 for filing appeal in this respect as AO even had not served assessment order and demand notice to the assessee. Further we are enclosing non serving proof of assessment order, demand notice and notices. Now assessee is seeking condonation for delay in filing appeal due to above said valid reason."

4.

Once the assessee has submitted that it has not received the assessment order and without giving any opportunity to the assessee, the ld. NFAC has passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hold that the matter should be restored back to first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced on 18TH day of April, 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →