Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee sold an immovable property for Rs. 1,35,00,000/- in FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19, but did not file a return of income. Subsequently, a best judgment assessment was made, and the income was added to the total income. The assessee challenged this before the CIT(A) but faced a delay of 359 days in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient reason for the delay, citing illness (cancer) and lack of knowledge of tax matters. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors. for a liberal approach to condoning delay. The assessment order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently caused, and whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal without considering the merits.
Sections Cited
250, 148AB, 142(1), 144(1), 50C, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 270A, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: BR BASKARAN & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
Sandhya Sital Sangtani Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) 302, Anand Nagar Sec 17, ITO 28(3)(1), Vashi, Vashi Rly Stn, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai. PAN/GIR No. AADPK5756E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar-CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM:
This appeal has been directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 by NFAC Delhi Mumbai [in short “CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”], Vide this impugned order by learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2018- 19, wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay and learned CIT(A) has refused to condone the delay for 359 days in filing the appeal.
The brief facts of the appeal are that the assessee Sandhya Sital Sangtani has sold an immovable property at Belapur, Navi Mumbai to Mr. Sarbajit Rana and Mrs. Soma Rana on 15.01.2018 for Rs. 1,35,00,000/- during the financial year 2017-18 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 and in the absence of the return of income, the income earned from property sale remained unexplained. After taking prior approval of the appellate authority u/s. 148AB of the Act, show cause notice added 21.03.2022 was issued to the assessee but the assessee failed to comply it. During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s. 142(1) were issued on various dates but the assessee did not respond. All the notices issued and served through e-mail upon the assessee but the assessee did not comply and has not made any submission or document before the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO has accordingly completed the best judgment assessment u/s. 144(1) of the Act and has added the total income of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- and brought the same to the tax along with penalty notice issued therein. The said order of the Ld.AO was challenged by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) seeking condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) of 359 days. Vide impugned order the Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay stating that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and dismissed the appeal without deciding the same on merit.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal and has raised the following grounds: “
1. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld AO.
2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- on account of sale consideration on sale of immovable property u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the delay in filing the appeal as requested by the assessee.
4. On the facts and Circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in charging interest under section 234A,234B,234C and 234D of the act
5. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. The Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, and alter and / or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.”
4. We have heard Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR, the Ld.AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee was suffering from cancer and could not appear before the Ld.AO and failed to file the response. Similarly, the assessee could not file the appeal in time before Ld. CIT(A) for the said reasons of her illness. It is therefore submitted that the justice requires that in the facts and circumstances, the assessee be given opportunity to present its case before Ld.AO and impugned order as well as Ld.AO’s order be set aside and matter be restored to the file of the Ld.AO. The Ld.DR on the other hand supported the judgment of the lower authorities stating that there is no illegality and perversity in the same and it was the assessee who failed to avail the opportunity given by the Ld.AO and has not filed appeal in time before the Ld. CIT(A) and as such prayed for dismissal of the case.
5. We have considered the given submissions and examined the record. We noticed that before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted the request letter as a annexure giving reason for condonation of delay which has been reproduced as basis of the impugned order. The assessee has sought condonation of delay before the Ld. CIT(A) primarily on the ground of her ill health and she being senior citizen as she remained unwell and disturbed throughout the year. It is further stated that she was not having enough knowledge of the accounts and income tax matter. She further claimed that since she was not having knowledge of accounts and income tax matter and was no aware of the compliances to the notice issued by the Ld.AO. It is further stated that due to family issues she could not approach the CA on time due to unavoidable reasons.
6. We have noticed that before us the assessee has filed affidavit cum declaration with respect to the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the affidavit we have noticed that the assessee has given sufficient case and reasons for not filing the appeal in time before learned CIT(A). Nothing contrary has been brought on record by the revenue which may contradict the affidavit filed by the assessee.
7. The assessee put reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji& Ors., [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC),dated 19.02.1987, wherein the Apex Court was pleased to hold regarding the condonation of delay as under:
“The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. 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 of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making of justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1. 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.”
8. For the above reasons, we are of considered opinion that the assessee needs to be heard on merit and since the assessment order is also passed ex-parte and erred of justice required that the assessment order need to be passed denovo. For the above reasons the impugned order and the order of Ld.AO are set side. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld.AO who shall decide the matter denovo after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is directed to file its submissions, documents before the Ld.AO within a period to 60 days of this order.
The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.02.2025.