Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist residing in a rural area, failed to receive notices from the Assessing Officer as they were not sent to the registered email ID. The assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the subsequent appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being filed with a delay of 55 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's petition for condonation of delay and the supporting affidavit. The delay of 55 days was condoned, and since the assessment order was ex-parte and the appeal was not decided on merits by the CIT(A), the matter was remanded.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte assessment order and subsequent dismissal of appeal without merit consideration warrant a remand.
Sections Cited
144, 142(1), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated, 14/11/2014 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and residing in a rural area. The assessee did not receive notices issued by the Assessing Officer, as well as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as none of the notices were sent to the email ID registered with the Department. He has referred to the profile of the assessee as available with the Department and Page 2 of 8 submitted that the assessee has given an email ID to the Department, however, the Assessing Officer has not sent any of the notices, as well as the as order to the email ID of the assessee. Therefore, there was a delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) without considering the petition for condonation of delay. as well as the affidavit filed by the assessee, has declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine. The learned AR has further pointed out that even the learned CIT (A) has taken incorrect fact while considering the condonation of delay in Para No.5 of the impugned order. The learned CIT (A) has mentioned the delay of 80 days whereas the actual delay in filing the appeal was only 55 days which shows that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without application of mind. He has referred to the reply filed by the assessee dated 30/05/2022 whereby the assessee has submitted a petition for condonation of delay with an affidavit explaining the cause of delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. Further, in response to the notice dated 7/10/2024, the assessee again filed a reply dated, 30/10/2024 along with supporting documents but the same was also not considered by the learned CIT (A) while passing the impugned order. Hence the learned AR has submitted that the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) may be condoned and since the assessment order was also passed ex- parte and the learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit, the matter may be remanded to the record of Page 3 of 8 the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that, the assessee is required to explain the delay of each and every day in filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). The reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit are very vague and therefore, do not constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. He has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A).
We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material available on record. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT (A) while declining to condone the delay in filing of the appeal has recorded the relevant facts in para 5.0 as under:
Thus, it is clear that the learned CIT (A) has considered only Form 35 filed by the assessee and not considered the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit dated, 13/05/2022 filed by the assessee vide reply dated 30/05/2022. The assessee has filed the acknowledgement of filing of the petition for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit placed at Page No.7 of the synopsis. Thus, it is manifest from the record that the assessee has duly filed petition for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit explaining the cause of delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the actual delay in filing the appeal at the most is 55 days and not 80 days which is considered by the learned CIT (A) as per para 5 of the impugned order reproduced above. Therefore, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned CIT (A) has not considered the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the cause of delay while declining the condonation of delay which manifest that the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT (A) in a casual manner without considering the relevant facts of the actual period of delay as well as the petition for condonation of delay and affidavit filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the affidavit filed before the learned CIT (A) as Page 5 of 8 under:
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee is an agriculturist and the assessment order was passed ex-parte, due to the reason that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer which we find from the record that the same were not sent to the email ID of the assessee registered with the Department. Therefore, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 142(1) as well as section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 were not sent to the email ID of the assessee but were only uploaded to the ITBA Portal of the Department. The assessee has filed relevant record downloaded from the ITBA Portal of the Department exhibiting this fact that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were not sent to the email ID but only uploaded to the ITBA. Therefore, the delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is hereby condoned. Since the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the learned CIT (A) has also not decided the appeal on merits, therefore, there was no occasion either for the assessee to produce the relevant record nor for the authorities below to examine the same. Hence the matter is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.