Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed her return for AY 2016-17. The case was reopened under Section 147, and assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 with additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but failed to respond to notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's lack of technological familiarity and unintentional oversight in responding to electronic notices. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal due to non-receipt of notices and whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) without the assessee's participation is sustainable.
Sections Cited
139, 147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE
अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17, vide order dated 30.10.2023.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2016-
:-2-: ITA. No: 497/Chny/2025 17 u/s. 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 31.03.2017 by declaring total income of Rs.73,53,920/-. The case was reopened as there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 21.12.2019 by making addition of Rs.79,82,150/- under the head income from other sources on account of stamp duty value of the immovable property purchased. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC.
The ld.CIT(A), NFAC issued notices to the assessee by providing an opportunity to submit the documents and evidence in support of the grounds of appeal filed as per para 3 of the ld.CIT(A) order. However, the assessee has failed to respond or submit any submissions before the appellate authorities and hence the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by dismissing the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee by passing an order dated 18.10.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before us with a delay of 416 days.
At the outset, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the delay in filing the appeal is due to non-receipt of notices and orders. The assessee stated in her affidavit that she is not having knowledge of technology operations and do not regularly use the email
:-3-: ITA. No: 497/Chny/2025 communications. Therefore, the electronic notice and order sent via email was inadvertently overlooked and caused an unintentional delay in filing the appeal and prayed for condone the same before us. Further, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that the order of the ld.CIT(A) has been passed without the participation of the assessee and hence prayed for one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the assessee’s appeal.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order by considering the information available and based on the AO’s order without the participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. We note the assessee is not having knowledge of technology operations and do not regularly use the email communications as per the affidavit filed, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. However, we do not deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in non- participation in appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
:-4-: ITA. No: 497/Chny/2025 In the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2024 at Chennai.