SUMAN YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2326/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2025AY 2019-2020Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 144B,Section 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

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.06.2025Pronounced: 03.06.2025

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).

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →