Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an uneducated lady, filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order which made additions on cash deposits during demonetization and other bank credits for AY 2017-18. There was a 334-day delay in filing the appeal, and the assessee contended the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without proper notice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the first appellate order by the CIT(A) was passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was, therefore, restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, and if the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) without notice violates principles of natural justice, necessitating a fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
ORDER
PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] under s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 20.12.2019 passed under s. 144 of the Act relevant to assessment year 2017-18.
When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that there is a delay of 334 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal against the first appellate order passed adversely against the assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee is an uneducated lady from rural background and is not well-versed with the procedural technicalities. The assessee has a strong prima-facie case on merits and therefore, any delay in filing the appeal does not stand to benefit the assessee and is only to the detriment of the interest of Page | 1 the assessee. Thus ‘totality of facts’ test should apply and the delay to be viewed benignly.
In the light of the submissions made, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in the course of hearing, pointed out that the additions arise out of cash deposits during demonetization period and other additions towards credit appearing in the bank account on estimated basis applying estimations of 10% of such aggregate credits. The Ld. Counsel observed that the additions have been made towards cash deposits of INR 16,21,000/- during demonetization period and 10% of the remaining credits appearing in the bank statement during the Financial Year. The additions of INR 22,28,954/- was thus made on such deposits and credits. The assessee simultaneously submits that the first appellate order has been passed ex-parte without serving any notice upon the assessee as evident from the screenshot of the e-portal appearing at page 45 of the Paper Book.
The first appellate order under challenge has been passed ex-parte without opportunity to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. I therefore, consider it expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law by way of a speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 7. purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 09th April, 2025.