Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of delay without adjudicating the merits. The assessee, who is not well-educated and unaware of tax provisions, missed notices due to not having an e-filing account or email address, only becoming aware of the demand when a notice was affixed to her house.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for delay constituted sufficient cause, aligning with Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's lack of awareness and communication during assessment proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for de novo adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 250, 148A, 45(5), 10(37)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI JAGADISH
Date of Hearing – 30/03/2026 Date of Order – 06/04/2026
O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 24/11/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19.
It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay without adjudicating the grounds raised
by the assessee on merits against the additions made vide order passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act. In its appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made the following submissions seeking condonation of delay and deletion of the addition made by the AO: - “1. That, the appellant is not aware of the Income Tax provision, hence could not respond to notices issues by the department.
2. That, the appellant was in an impression that the agriculture lands acquired by state or central government for the infrastructure developments is different in nature and the consideration received from such compulsory acquisition is always exempted from the Income Tax and other tax parameters.
That, the appellant being not educated enough to understand the income tax provisions could not interact with the law of Income Tax and hence missed the communication entirely during the assessment for the above assessment year.
That, The Honorable Additional District Court, Rewari and High court, in this regard clearly said that the Solatium& Interest awarded to the Land owner on enhanced compensation by Apex court on compulsorily acquisition of Agriculture Land as per section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land acquisition act, 1894 is only an accretion to the value of land and not in the nature of interest and the same is liable to be treated as per the provision of section 45(5) read with section 10(37) of the I.T Act, 1961.
That the consideration received as enhanced compensation falls under section23(1A) and solatium u/s 23(2) is also part of enhanced compensation. So additional amount under section 28 as Interest forms part of enhanced compensation as per the Act.
Aggrieved by the order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and the demand raised in the order is unacceptable and the appellant like to convey strong objection against the demand raised.
Further, the appellant wishes to refer some identical and similar cases as evidence wherein the findings are resulted infavour of the assessee and that ofrevenues are dismissed. (i) Satbir Ram & Others vs ITO ITAT Chandigarh_ITA No's 1413 to1415/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2007 - 08 to 2009-10 Dtd. 09.07.2018 (A.Y. 2018-19) 3 ii) Kamalakar Atmaram Kadu vs ITO PanveL_ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/10146 29953(1) A. Y. 2016 - 17 Dtd. 28.12.2018 iii) Sushma Gupta vs ITO Faridabad_ITA No.1823/Del/2016 A.Y. 2010- 11 Dtd. 31.01.2019 iv) ITO Panchkula vs Dhanender Kumar HUF_ITA No. 1591/CHD/2018 A. Y. 2010 - 11 Dtd. 30.09.2019 v) ITO Panchkula vs Chawli Devi_ITA No. 63 & 64/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 Dtd. 17.05.2021 Your Honour, the First Reliance is placed on the decision of Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anilaben Rohitbhai Modi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)1, Dtd. 23rd June, 2023 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH SHASTRI) C/SCA/3526/2022CAVJUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2023 [1] Rule. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate waives service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. (2] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 27.01.2022 at Annexure-N and also impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 at Annexure-A.] The background of the facts which has narrated in the petition is that petitioner is an individual and citizen of India and was holding a parcels of land with other co-owners bearing Survey Nos.766, 777 and 786 at Village Khoraj. Taluka Sanand. The said parcels of land along with many others were required for public purposes and as such a notification was issued in the Extra Ordinary Gazette dated 07.10.2013 to acquire the same portion of lands which are narrated in the notification. In response to the said process of acquisition, the petitioner along with other co-owners provided the details of the land owned by them on 30.08.2013 and later on, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 30.12.2013 to receive consideration C/SCA/3526/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED:23/06/2023against the same. The petitioner along with other co-owners received 75% of the consideration against the acquisition of three land parcels as indicated above, on 08.12.2015.”
We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal (A.Y. 2018-19) 4 before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in a similar factual matrix in the case of the assessee.
We find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the document as sought by the AO, and therefore, the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 147, read with section 144, read with section 144B of the Act, on the basis of the material available on record. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that since the assessee never created any e-filing account nor possesses any email address of her own, she never received any notice issued during the assessment proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned AR placed on record the communication regarding the issuance of the notice under section 148A of the Act, which does not mention the assessee's email address. The learned AR submitted that only after receipt of the demand notice, which was affixed on the wall of her house in Mumbai, she immediately approached a consultant and filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A) after creation of the e-filing account by entering the relevant details and using the email address of her son.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits and produce all the documents in support of its claim. Since in the present appeal, the (A.Y. 2018-19) 5 assessee also did not appear before the AO, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merit after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As the matter is being restored to the jurisdictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/04/2026