Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual from a rural background, failed to respond to notices from the AO, leading to an ex-parte best judgment assessment. She later filed an appeal with the CIT(A) after a significant delay of 930 days, citing lack of knowledge of e-proceedings and faceless assessment procedures.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the condition that the assessee pays Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The case was remitted to the AO for denovo consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) can be condoned for an assessee from a rural background with no knowledge of e-proceedings, and whether the assessment order should be set aside for denovo consideration.
Sections Cited
249, 147, 144, 144B, 142(1), 69, 69A, 133(6), 156, 234A, 234B, 271AAC, 115BBE, 139(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER
PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 29/05/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 and raised the following grounds: “
1. The impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A) /AO to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant is not justified in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that there was a reasonable cause in filing the appeal under section 249 belatedly.
Page 2 of The learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the orders against the principles of natural justice.
The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction.
In the absence of proper notice/order service, the impugned reassessment order is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.
6. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 15,05,000/-; as unexplained money; 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in recharacterizing the nature of income.
8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 are not applicable to facts in the present case; 9. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 69,50,000/- as the purchase of immovable property.
In making the above addition, the Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the source of investment; 11. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 is not applicable to the facts in the present case.
The impugned adjustments, being merely based on presumption and surmises, are to be deleted; 13. The Learned CIT(A) and AO should have obtained the required information by invoking the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act; 14. The purpose of assessment is to determine the correct income; the Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the same and proceeding ahead with the sole intention of making an addition to the returned income; 15. The impugned adjustments, being merely based on presumption and surmises, are to be deleted;
The order is unreasonably high pitch high-pitched for liable to be quashed in its entirety; 17. The actions of the Learned CIT(A) and AO are contrary to the provisions of the Act, facts of the case, arbitrary and without any application of mind; 18. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act; 19. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act for not furnishing the return of income. 20. The Learned Officer has erred in raising a demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act; 21. The Learned Officer has erred in law by levying interest under section 234A/B of the Act; (Tax effect Rs. 26,12,595/-) On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be quashed and relief sought be granted.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31/03/2018. Thereafter a revised return u/s. 139(5) was also filed on 23/12/2019. The AO had issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act but the assessee had not responded to the said notice and therefore the AO based on the information available with him, had treated the purchase of a house as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the AO had made an addition u/s. 69A of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. The assessee had no knowledge about the assessment proceedings and therefore the appeal could not be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in time. Subsequently, on receipt of the penalty notice, the assessee found that there was an assessment made u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 930 days and also filed an application to condone the said delay. The assessee submitted that she is not well versed
Page 4 of in the faceless e-proceedings and also submitted that she is from a village background and therefore she had no knowledge about the order passed by the AO u/s. 144 of the Act. Only when the assessee had received a registered post, she approached the local consultant and he has also not taken any steps in time and therefore the said delay has been happened. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the said reasons averred by the assessee and therefore rejected the said application as without any valid reasons and thereby rejected the appeal filed by the assessee since the same is barred by limitation.
As against the said order, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal and reiterated the grounds raised.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the reasons stated in the said application to condone the delay is a fact since the assessee is a lady coming from the rural background, she has no knowledge about the operation of the e-proceedings and therefore she was not able to respond to the notices issued by the AO but unfortunately, the Ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the reasons stated by the assessee and dismissed the delay condonation application. The Ld.AR therefore prayed an opportunity to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and put forth their case on merits.
5. The Ld. DR submitted that even though notices were issued to the assessee, there was no response from the assessee and therefore the AO has no other option except to pass an order u/s. 144 of the Act. Further, the Ld.DR submitted that the reasons stated in the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is also not a valid one and therefore prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be confirmed.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
In the present case, there is no dispute about the status of the assessee that she is an old lady and coming from the rural background and Page 5 of therefore it could be presumed that she has no knowledge in operating the portal as well as the computers. This fact was not disputed by the revenue.
Considering the said facts and also considering the fact that the assessment is a best judgment assessment, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on condition that the assessee should pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The said cost should be paid by the assessee within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Considering the fact that the assessment is also an ex-parte assessment, we deem it fit to remit the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. The AO is directed to consider the issue afresh and also verify the fact that the assessee had deposited the said cost as ordered by us in the earlier part of this paragraph and thereafter proceeded to decide the assessment in accordance with law. If the assessee has failed to comply with the condition of paying the cost, the benefit granted by us would automatically vacated and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) would restore automatically. With the above directions, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit this issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th December, 2025.