Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a senior citizen, faced a significant delay in filing an appeal due to her authorized representative leaving the country without notice and personal distress from the loss of her husband during the Covid pandemic. The appeal was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) confirming an addition made by the AO.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-, due to the bonafide and unavoidable circumstances explained by the assessee. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause and if the ex-parte order of CIT(A) was justified without proper opportunity to the assessee.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 133(6), 142(1), 139(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO
ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 11.06.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.
2. There is a delay of 464 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has 2 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen of 68 years old. The assessee lost her husband during the Covid-2019 pandemic which caused considerable personal and financial distress. The assessee was depending on the Authorised Representative “Masood & Associates” for handling the tax matters. However, the said person left for USA without informing the assessee about the status of the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee was not having the knowledge of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Thus, he has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee has not explained any ‘reasonable and sufficient cause’ for the abnormal delay of 464 days in filing the appeal.
1. 3 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the petition filed for condonation of delay as under:
1. “The appellant most respectfully submits as under 1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 11/06/2024 was not communicated to the appellant in time due to reasons beyond the appellant's control.
That the appellant had entrusted the matter to her Authorised Representative, Masood & Associates, for handling the case and informing her about any notices or orders. The email ID registered on the e-filing portal was that of the Authorised Representative (masoodandassociates62 @ gmail. com), and all communications were sent to the said email ID. However, the said Authorised Representative failed to inform the appellant about the passing of the CIT(A) order. Subsequently, without any prior intimation or proper handover of case records, he left for the United States. The appellant is an elderly lady aged about 68 years old, not well-versed with legal and tax procedures, and had also suffered the loss of her husband during the COVID period, which caused considerable personal and financial distress.
The appellant made several genuine and repeated attempts to contact the said Authorised Representative through calls, messages, and other means, but no response was received from him.
1. 4 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 4. Due to the above circumstances, the appellant remained completely unaware of the passing of the order as well as the limitation period prescribed for filing the appeal, which resulted in an unintentional delay.
5. The delay of 485 days is neither willful nor deliberate but has occurred solely due to the unavoidable, bona fide, and unforeseen circumstances stated above. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble ITAT may kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal, in the interest of justice, and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.”
1. 4.1. Thus, the assessee has explained the reasons that the matter was handed over to M/s. Masood & Associates who has filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) giving his own email-ID and therefore, all the communication were sent to the email-ID of the Authorised Representative who left for USA without intimation to the assessee. The assessee is old widow about 68 years and was completely depending on the Tax Consultant/Authorised Representative. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I take a lenient view to condone the delay of 464 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal subject to cost of Rs.5000/- [Rs. Five Thousand Only] to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National 5 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 Relief Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“The order of the leamed Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case.
2. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming an addition of Rs.17,56,112/-made u/s 69A of the IT Act.
3. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the email address given is that of then AR of the assessee, however, he has not responded to any of the notices, therefore, the learned Commissioner ought to have accorded an opportunity by communicating the assessee by sending the notice in physical form, therefore, erred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,56,112/- made u/s 69A of the IT Act.
The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the assessee being old lady of above 60 years having savings from advance deposits and rental income and contributions from other family members, therefore, therefore, erred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,56,112/- made u/s 69A of the IT Act.
5. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order wherein, the tax was calculated u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, whereas, this sanction is not applicable for the assessment year 2017-18.
The appellant craves leave to add to, amend OR modify the above grounds of appeal either before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.”
1. 6 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 6. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte whereby the Assessing Officer has made the additions on account of deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order ex-parte whereby the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been confirmed. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that since the assessee was not aware about the notice issued by the learned CIT(A) and her Authorised Representative/Tax Consultant who was handling the matter left for USA without intimation to the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT(A). He has thus, pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that it is a case of gross negligence on the part of the assessee and there was no return of income filed by the assessee u/sec.139(1) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961.
7 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 Even the assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer. She has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings on the basis of the information regarding cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee filed the reply during the assessment proceedings and explained the source of the cash deposit during the demonetization period is out of gold loan taken from Vijaya Bank and subsequently, the assessee withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- on 21.10.2016 from Vijaya Bank account and deposited the same during the demonetization period of Rs.5 lakhs. The Assessing Officer finally made the addition of Rs.17,56,112/- on the basis of the information collected u/sec.133(6) of the Act. It is manifest from the assessment order that there was no show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer to confront the said information gathered u/sec.133(6) of the Act to the assessee. The assessee 8 ITA.No.2189/Hyd./2025 challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A), however, there was no representation before the learned CIT(A) despite various notices. The assessee has explained the cause for non-representation as her Authorised Representative/Tax Consultant left for USA without intimation. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.