ISHWARAPPA DUNDAPPA HANAGANDI,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

There is a delay of 708 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay contending that assessee was not fully conversant with procedural framework and operational aspects of the Faceless Assessment regime introduced under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and owing to lack of familiarity with the system, assessee was unaware that the order has been made and available electronically. Further contended that assessee is a Senior Citizen with limited knowledge of provision of the I.T. Act as well as technical aspects of online assessment and appellate proceedings. Thus sought for condoning the delay of 708 days in filing the present appeal.

Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal, thus sought for dismissal of the appeal on delay in latches.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is the case of the assessee that assessee was not fully conversant with procedural framework and operational aspects of the Faceless Assessment regime and owing to lack of familiarity with the system, assessee was unaware that the order has been made and available electronically. Further, assessee is a Senior Citizen with limited knowledge of 12 years of the I.T. Act as well as technical aspects of online assessment and appellate proceedings.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again clarified that the delay in filing the appeal with sufficient cause should be looked into in a liberal way and shall condone the delay. In the landmark decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the delay when supported by justifiable reasons, must make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 708 days in filing the Appeal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only), which shall be deposited to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

The brief facts of the case are that an assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 came to be passed on 19.12.2019 by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) are passed ex parte in violation of the principles of natural justice, thus sought for allowing the appeal.

Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the grounds of appeal of the assessee are devoid of merits and by relying on the orders of the lower authorities, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) while deciding the first appeal vide order impugned, dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the first appeal on its merits. Even the AO has not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we remand the matter to the file of the AO for framing de novo assessment. Needless to say that assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh assessment.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.