Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny due to a refund claim. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee later filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a significant delay, which was dismissed on grounds of limitation.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee not receiving the notices sent to the consultant's email. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the case to the AO for a fresh consideration, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documents.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is justifiable and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present evidence.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
Date of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 31/12/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2021-22.
The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 29/07/2021. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason that there was a claim of refund. To the various notices issued by the AO, the assessee had not responded and therefore a show cause notice was issued u/s. 144 of the Act but the assessee had not responded to the said show cause notice and therefore the AO had disallowed the deductions and exemptions and added the same to his income. The AO also added the investment made by the assessee in time deposits since the source of investment was not furnished. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 218 days. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The assessee challenged the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the notices were issued by the AO to the email ID of the consultant and therefore the assessee was not able to view the same. The Ld.AR further submitted that only at the time of filing the return for the next year, the assessee came to know about the various notices and the order of the AO. Later on, the assessee contacted the then consultant and confirmed that he has received the notices and the order in his email ID which was not communicated to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and thereby the delay of 218 days has been occurred and prayed to condone the said delay. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the documents to show that the deduction claimed and the fixed deposits are having proper sources and prayed to grant an opportunity.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
The only contention made by the assessee is that all the notices and the assessment order were sent to the email ID of the consultant and therefore the assessee had no knowledge about the said notices and order and hence the delay of 218 days has been occurred. As seen from the assessment order, we came to know that the assessee is a retired employee of Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. and all the deductions claimed by him as well as the investment made by him are from the known sources. Even though the claim of the assessee is correct, since no details were furnished before the AO, the AO has no other opportunity except to confirm the order u/s. 144 of the Act.
We have also considered the reasons stated by the assessee that he is not well versed in operating the systems and also the fact that the notices and orders were sent to the email ID of the consultant which was not communicated to the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not be penalised for the mistake committed by the consultant. Considering the said facts and circumstances, we accept that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is not wantonly done by the assessee and therefore we are inclined to condone the said delay of 218 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation and therefore he has no opportunity to decide the appeal on merits. Before the Tribunal, the assessee filed a paper book comprising the written submissions filed before the Ld.CIT(A), copy of the Canara Bank account statement from 01-04-2020 to 31-03-2021, copy of the cheque for having withdrawn the PF amount and the copy of form 16 in support of his claim that the assessment made by the AO is not correct. Unfortunately, the documents now filed before us, was not made available before the AO since the notices were not received by him. Considering the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to furnish the required documents. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the same to the file of the AO for denovo consideration, after granting 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 30th July, 2025.