JAIKUSUMA BALAKRISHNA SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDAssessment Year : 2016-17
PER:
NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY,
JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.10.2024 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter in short “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 {in short ‘Act’} for the A.Y. 2016-17 arising out of the order dated 30.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Smt Jaikusuma Balakrishna Shetty
Page 2 of 5
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -
“1. The orders of the authorities below. in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT[AJ/NFAC erred in disposing off the appeal without allowing proper and effective opportunity to the appellant in course of the appellate proceedings under the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.
3. The learned CIT[A/NFAC is not justified in holding that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal on the ground that no petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CITIAl was filed under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
4
The learned CIT[A]/NFAC is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.71,14,744/- as income from other sources under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
4.1
The learned CIT[A]/NFAC is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs.51,85,500/- towards alleged bogus bills treated as income from other sources, while accepting the agricultural income reported by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
4.2
The learned CIT[AJ/NFAC is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,28,944/- towards proportionate expenditure on alleged bogus bills treated as income from other sources, while accepting the agricultural income reported by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.
5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234-A and 234-B of the Act,
Smt Jaikusuma Balakrishna Shetty
Page 3 of 5
which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellants case deserves to be cancelled.
6. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”
3. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 133 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the assessee has claimed that because of ill-health and Doctor’s advice, she could not contact her tax consultant, upon receipt of the impugned order, however on being advised by Shri
Shivarudraswamy, CA, she immediately prepared and filed the instant appeal but with a delay of 133 days. The assessee in support of such claim, has also filed medical certificates.
4. On the contrary, Ld. DR refuted the claim of the assessee.
5. Having considered the reasons stated by the assessee for the condonation of delay along with the medical certificates, as bonafide, genuine, unintentional and plausible reason for the delay, we are inclined to condone the delay, thus the same is condoned.
6. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that before the Ld.
Commissioner also, there was a delay of 49 days in fling the first appeal, on which assessee has claimed that assessee instead of challenging the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 by filling 1st appeal, on being advised by the erstwhile Tax Assistant, has preferred an application under section 154 of the Act, however no order on such application, has been passed by the AO.
Therefore on being further advised, the assessee preferred first appeal before the d. Commissioner, against the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 under section 143(3) of the Act.
Smt Jaikusuma Balakrishna Shetty
Page 4 of 5
We observe from the impugned order that despite of sending five notices, the assessee made no compliance. The Ld. AR Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, by drawing our attention to Form 35, has demonstrated that in the column pertaining to the details of the assessee, assessee in response to the question “whether notice / communication may be sent on email”, the assessee has replied specifically “NO”. 8. The assessee therefore has claimed that the assessee being a rustic villager and agriculturist, is not acquainted with the digital communication and/or email etc. and therefore she had specifically mentioned “No” in the column for sending the notices though email etc.. It is fact that despite of requesting for sending physical notices, not a single physical notice has been sent by the Ld. Commissioner. 9. We observe that the aforesaid fact shows genuineness of the assessee qua non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore we are inclined not to take adverse view on such non-appearance. Even otherwise, we observe that the issue involved in this case also remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore we are of the considered opinion, substantial justice would be met by remitting the instant case to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say by providing an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, for demonstrating the reason for delay of 49 days and merits of the case. 10. The assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions and documents and shall update the latest address to the Ld. Commissioner for sending the notices. We clarify that in case of any subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 11. Thus, in the aforesaid terms the case is remanded to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh Smt Jaikusuma Balakrishna Shetty
Page 5 of 5
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th August, 2025 (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Bangalore,
Giridhar/Sr.PS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file
By order
Asst.