Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in livestock trading and residing in a rural area, appealed to the CIT(A) against an order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal 'in limine' without condoning a delay of 236 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illiteracy and lack of awareness of technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned considering the assessee's circumstances, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 69A, 271AAC(1), 156, 220, 142(1), 148, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.01.2024 which is arising out of Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 15.02.2022 framed by ITO assessment unit.
2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That aforesaid Ex-Party order u/s 250 of IT Act has been passed by learned commissioner of income tax without considering the merits. As per the doctrine of natural justice learned commissioner had not given a proper opportunity to the assessee.
That learned commissioner of income tax has been not given any opportunity to assessee to file income tax return. Therefore, assessee could not give any proper information about the objections.
That learned commissioner of income tax has not taken into consideration the that the assessee is illiterate person. assessee is wholly depended upon his chartered accountant. And due to problems of chartered accountant he is unable to give assessee proper information about aforesaid order. Therefore, assessee was not aware about the order u/s 250.
That learned commissioner of income tax has not taken into consideration that to file an appeal assessee should get proper information considering the fact that, assessee unable to understand or use electric device like Phone, laptop, computer even though the assessee cannot use e-mail and other bas features of devices. As well as he is not aware about digital form of notice. Hence assessee had no any knowledge about the aforesaid order.
5. Though the assessee is illiterate person he is not able to understand the notices issued under IT Act. Considering this fact assessee did not understand the notices u/s of IT Act. Due to misunderstanding assessee would not able to understand the order and notices.
That assessee engaging in trading of livestock. After getting money from seller assessee buys livestock from farmers and pay them in cash. Margin between buying and selling is profit of Assessee. Deposit and withdrawal are transactions of assessee, credit entries reflected in assessee's bank account are not profit.
7. That officer in Assessment unit of income tax department has wrongly concluded that section 69 A of Income tax act is attracted in this assessment. credit entries amounting to Rs.1,07,93,000/-, corresponding to cash withdrawals of Rs.1,07,93,000/- should not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. assessee was ready to give a proper explanation. assessee does not get a proper opportunity to explain. 8. That order under section 271 AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act and Notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-Tax Act has been ordered on same date which is 10/07/2023. As per section 220 after issuing notice U/s 156 amount shall be paid within month. assessee has not given that opportunity. Therefore, order u/s 271 AAC (1) is null and void. 9. That considering the assessment order it is contended that Notice u/s 142(1),144 SCN and other notices had not been received. there is no any remark has given that notice has been served to assessee or not regarding notice u/s 148 and intimation letter. Without serving notices Assessment unit officer of income tax department has wrongly made an assessment. Therefore, this assessment needs to be set aside. 10. That assessee is ready to furnish balance sheet and profit, loss statement. assessee has ready to furnish any necessary document for this appeal. 11. That for these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of final hearing of this application
3. The assessee has raised 11 grounds of appeal but apart from the grounds on merits, the main grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in “limine” by not condoning delay of 236 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A).
4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Perusal of impugned order indicates that since the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 236, and even though the application for condonation of delay was filed but Ld. CIT(A) did not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in “Limine”.
We observe that the assessee is residing in a rural area and engaged in trading live stocks. Return of Income is not filed. Assessee seems to be unaware of technicalities of filing of the appeal.
6. We therefore taking a liberal approach and being fair to both the parties and in the interest of justice deem it proper to condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as provided u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that a proper opportunity of hearing be granted to assessee. Ld. CIT(A) may call for remand report from Ld. JAO if considered necessary. Assessee should also refrain from taking necessary adjudication. Effective grounds of appeal raised by assessee on merits are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 18th day of March, 2025.