Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC. The original assessment order was passed ex-parte u/s 144 as the assessee did not respond to notices. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also ex-parte. The present appeal was filed with a delay of 126 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 126 days, citing the assessee's age, her son's death, her husband's illness, and her own depression and anxiety. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order and remitted the issue to the AO for denovo consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the source of funds for property purchases.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & 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 30/12/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, we find that the assessment order was passed u/s. 144 of the Act since the assessee had not responded to any of the notices issued by the AO. Therefore the AO had treated the transaction of immovable property effected during the year as source not explained. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). But Ld.CIT(A) and therefore an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee challenged the said ex-parte order before this Tribunal.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee with a delay of 126 days and filed an application to condone the said delay. In the condonation application, the assessee submitted that she is a senior citizen and she depended upon his son Shri Swarun Raj in the income tax matters but unfortunately the assessee’s son passed away on 09/06/2013. Thereafter her husband was also affected with Alzheimer and Dementia and the assessee also suffered from depression and anxiety after the death of her son. The assessee also filed the medical records in support of her submissions.
The email ID of the assessee’s son sharun.waterz@gmail.com was provided in the portal as well as in form 35 and therefore no notices were received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the order of the Ld.CIT(A) upon the receipt of the penalty notice dated 23/06/2025 and thereafter through the portal, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was downloaded. After getting opinion from the present counsel, the appeal papers were made ready and the appeal was filed with a delay of 126 days.
We have considered the said submissions and the medical records enclosed by the assessee and we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time before this Tribunal and therefore we are inclined to condone the delay of 126 days in filing the appeal.
The case of the assessee is that all the notices by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of her son Late Shri Swarun Raj and therefore she has no knowledge about the proceedings initiated by the authority. We have also perused the form 35 in which the same email ID was mentioned.
7. Considering the said facts and also in the interest of justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to furnish the details of the immovable property and to show the source for the said purchases. We, therefore set aside the order of the lower authorities and remit this issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd September, 2025.