SANGEETA PUNDALEEK SHIBARAGATTI,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances and the interest of substantial justice. They set aside the assessment order and directed a de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a small agriculturist with limited digital access, appealed against the CIT(A)'s dismissal of their appeal due to a delay. The delay was attributed to genuine hardships and lack of awareness, and the original assessment order was passed ex parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's circumstances, and whether a de novo assessment is warranted after an ex parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Hemanth Shurpali, CA
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 08.05.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07/01/2025 and 16-07-2024 bearing DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1071961994(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066744926 (1), for the assessment year 2014-15.

2. In the present case, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of approximately 10½ months in filing the appeal, stating that the delay had not been adequately explained. Although the assessee had indicated in Form 35, the memo of appeal that an explanatory letter was filed, the ld. CIT(A) noted that no such letter was found on record, and hence declined to condone the delay.

3.

Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

Before us, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee is a small agriculturist residing in a remote village, with no access to digital facilities such as a computer or a personal email ID. The email ID mentioned in Form 35 was provided by a tax consultant and not personally known to the assessee. Owing to these genuine hardships and lack of awareness, the assessee could not respond promptly or pursue the matter diligently within the stipulated time.

4.1 It was further submitted that the assessment order was passed ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The learned AR argued that the assessee has a strong case on merits and should be given a fair chance to present her case both at the assessment and appellate levels.

4.2 On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not raise any objection to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) as per law.

5.

Considering the totality of circumstances, including the lack of infrastructure, limited literacy in digital matters available with the assessee, and the fact that the assessment itself was framed ex parte, we are of the view that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Furthermore, since the assessment was also completed without proper participation by the assessee, we find it appropriate to set aside the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

5.1 The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer in the fresh proceedings and to avoid any unnecessary adjournments. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with a direction to the AO to re-adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, since the related quantum appeal has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, we similarly set aside this penalty appeal to the AO for reconsideration in . accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are also allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In conclusion, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →