Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against orders of the NFAC which upheld the original assessment orders. The assessee claimed that notices were issued to a wrong address, leading to her lack of awareness of the proceedings. The NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a woman, deserved sympathetic consideration for the delay. It was noted that the delay was substantial but the claim of wrong addresses needed inquiry. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
144, 144B, 27A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These are appeals is preferred by the Assessee against the orders dated 28.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or ‘the Ld. FAA’, for short) in Appeals No.NFAC/2018-19/10196391 and No.NFAC/2018- 19/10196392, arising out of the appeal before it against the orders dated 28.09.2021 and 14.01.2022 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B and u/s 27A, respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the NFeAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).
Heard and perused the record. Amongst other grounds on merit, the assessee has raised a ground that opportunity of hearing was not given by NFAC and the appeal was dismissed without condoning the delay which was sufficiently explained.
The ld. DR has opposed the claim of the assessee that the delay was sufficiently explained. However, we find that this is a case of an individual who is a women. The assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making an addition denying the benefit of exempt income claimed on enhanced compensation. The assessee had claimed before the NFAC that she was not aware of the proceedings at any stage. The ld. AR has submitted that the notices were issued to a wrong address and before the NFAC while moving the application for condonation of delay similar assertion was made and it appears that without making any factual inquiry and discussion on the averments of the assessee that notices were not duly served, merely considering the delay to be too long, the delay was not condoned.
We find that the claim of the assessee who is a women deserved to be considered sympathetically though the delay was for a substantial period. However, the facts of wrong addresses being mentioned as asserted needed more detailed inquiry.