Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a farmer, challenged an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) which upheld an addition of Rs. 1,16,97,500/-. The assessee claimed non-compliance due to illiteracy and issues with tax consultants, leading to ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The appeal was filed belatedly.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to participate promptly in the fresh proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding an ex-parte addition without considering the assessee's inability to participate due to illiteracy and issues with representatives, and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar
"ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद" के सम!। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं / Year : 2017-18 Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel The ITO बनाम/ Dhakha, Taluka Dhanera Ward-1 v/s. Banaskantha – 385 310 Palanpur – 385 310 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: CTHPP 2593 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARs Revenue by : Shri Uday Krishanrao Kakne, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 24/07/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-2018.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 “1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 24.07.2024 for AY 2017-18 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)" upholding the addition of Rs.1,16,97,500/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.
2.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there could not be compliance to the notices claimed to be issued mainly on account of failure of the tax consultant and the appellant being illiterate and residing in a remote village, he was unaware about the same nor had knowledge or means to access the mail or IT Portal. Thus, there was a sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices claimed to be issued by NFAC as well as FAO.
3.1 The Id.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the cash deposits in both the bank accounts to the extent of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- was unexplained income u/s.69A.
3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A), ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- in respect of cash deposits in in both the bank accounts.
3.3 Without prejudice to above, the impugned addition of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- is highly excessive and calls for substantial reduction.
It is, therefore, prayed that the additions of Rs. 1,16,97,500/- upheld by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.”
The appeal is time-barred by 137 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.
The Ld.Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order dated 28/03/2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act to submit that the same is an ex-parte/best judgement assessment order. The Ld.Counsel has further invited our attention to the appellate order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 24/07/2024 to submit that the same is also an ex-parte order. The Ld.Counsel referring to the application for condonation of delay has submitted that, in fact, the assessee Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18 is a farmer and he is neither literate nor computer savvy, and that he does not know nitty-gritties of the Income-tax proceedings. He has further submitted that, now-a-days, income-tax assessment and the appellate proceedings are conducted online. The assessee being an illiterate person had handed over his matter to an Accountant, who had further referred the matter to one Shri Vijay Patel, C.A. In the appellate proceedings, the notices were issued at the email-id of the said Shri Vijay Patel, C.A., who, however, did not properly represent the case in the said proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee entrusted the matter to the firm C.A. Bihari Shah & Co. of Ahmedabad represented through Shri Parag Malvi, C.A. of Palanpur. Thereafter, the assessee was informed that the matter has already been decided by the CIT(A) ex-parte of the assessee. So far as the assessment proceedings were concerned, it has been explained that initial notices were issued during the Corona (Covid- 2019) period and the last notice was issued during the post Corona period. However, as explained above, the C.A. appointed by the assessee did not participate in the proceedings resulting into an ex-parte assessment order. It has, therefore, been requested that in view of the above facts and considering that the assessee is a farmer and illiterate person and, hence, was dependent upon the concerned C.A., who neither informed about the assessee the ongoing proceedings nor participated in the same, hence, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Ld.AO.
The Ld.DR, however, has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Raymalbhai Gokalbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year 2017-18
Considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that, in this case, the interests of justice will be well served, if, the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. Needless to say, that the assessee will promptly participate in the assessment proceedings and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.