Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an illiterate farmer, failed to disclose certain income and file returns for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to income. The assessee filed appeals with a delay, citing illness, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals and condonation applications.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's illiteracy and illness, and the Supreme Court's stance on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals due to delay was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals on account of delay, considering the assessee's status and the cited precedent on "sufficient cause"?
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 250, 194A, 194IA, 148A, 148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
O R D E R
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeals filed by the Appellant/assessee are against separate orders dated 28.08.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) under Sections 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of separate assessment orders dated 27.05.2023 and 15.03.2023 of the Assessment Unit, Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively.
The appeals involve similar facts, grounds and issues, so, they have been heard together for the sake of convenience. are that the information available with the office reveals that assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.10,01,000/-during assessment year 2014-15. The assessee had made TDS return – other interest under Section 194A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,35,616/- and also a payment received in respect to transfer of immoveable property (TDS form 26QB, section 194IA) amounting to Rs.4,98,66,600/- which was not disclosed in ITR as ITR for the assessment year 2014-15 was not filed. The case was reopened vide order under Section 148A sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act dated 22.07.2022. Notice under Section 148 was served upon the assessee on 22.7.2022 was issued. Notices under Section 142(1) dated 28.01.2023 and 16.03.2023 were issued but assessee did not respond. Show-cause-notice under Section 144 of the Act dated 26.04.2023 and 09.05.2023 were issued but there was no response by the assessee. On completion of assessment proceedings, additions of Rs.4,98,66,600/-- and 2 Rs.11,36,616/- for assessment year 2014-15 were made vide order dated 27.05.2023 by the Ld. AO.
Section 148 dated 08.04.2021 was issued. The assessee did not file return for assessment year 2016-17. Specific information was flagged as per risk management strategy. Notices under Section 148 dated 07.07.2022, notices under Section 142(1) dated 05.01.2023 and 03.02.2023, reminder letter dated 08.02.2023 and show-cause dated 17.02.2023 and 28.02.2023 were not replied by the assessee. On completion of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 15.03.2023 made addition of Rs.1,26,00,000/- for assessment year 2016-17.
Against orders dated 27.05.2023 and 15.03.2023, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeals before Ld. CIT(A) along with applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals. Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders dated 28.08.2024, dismissed application for condonation of delay in filing appeals and appeal.
Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeals.
Learned Authorised Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals on account of delay of 248 days and 292 days in filing appeals due to illness of assessee, his son and the assessee being illiterate farmer. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. Vs. Katiji and Ors. MANU/SC/0460/1987 has held that ‘The expression “sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the Institution of Courts’.
Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that appellant had not filed ITR before the Ld. AO.
From examination of record in the aforesaid rival submissions, it is crystal clear that appellant/assessee is illiterate farmer. The appellant had filed ITR for assessment year 2014-15 on 20.12.2021. Despite repeated notices, appellant/assessee failed to file reply. Ld. AO passed orders dated 27.05.2023 and 15.03.2023 under Section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively. Appellant/assessee filed appeals before Ld. CIT(A) with application for condonation of delay of 248 days and 292 days for assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 respectively by pleading illness of himself and son. Ld. CIT(A) vide separate orders dated 28.05.2024 dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals and appeal. As per ratio of judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katji’s case, supra, it is well settled law that a liberal approach is to be adopted on principles. ‘The expression “sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life-purpose for the existence of the Institution of Courts’ while deciding the contentions of appeal.
In view of above material facts and well settled principles of law in the interest of substantial natural justice, the impugned orders dated 28.08.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) and 27.05.2023 dated 15.03.2023 of Ld. AO are set aside. The matters are restored to the file of Ld. AO for fresh decision in accordance with law.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.