Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 408 days, seeking condonation of delay. The assessee, a farmer with limited knowledge of tax laws, claimed the delay was unintentional and due to circumstances beyond her control, including lack of awareness of online procedures.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons furnished to be reasonable and bona-fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider the admission of additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits and without considering additional evidence.
Sections Cited
148, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM
Order
PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
This appeal by the assessee arises from the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 408 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the condonation petition, the assessee has explained that she is a farmer by occupation, residing in a rural area, and has very limited knowledge of income tax laws as well as online procedures. It has been stated that she was not aware of the requirement to check or respond through the income-tax e-filing portal and came to know about the demand only upon receipt of a physical notice from the Department. Thereafter, she immediately sought professional assistance. The delay, according to the assessee, is wholly unintentional and caused due to circumstances beyond her control.
Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay.
After considering the contents of the petition, we are satisfied that the reasons furnished constitute reasonable and bona-fide cause. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned.
During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised several grounds challenging the validity of reassessment on account of non- service of notice under section 148, alleged non-speaking order on objections, incorrect appreciation of facts relating to transfer of ancestral agricultural land without consideration, and denial of opportunity for furnishing additional evidence under Rule 46A.
The impugned order reveals that although five notices were issued to the assessee on different dates, no effective submissions were received except a request for adjournment. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex- parte and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of non-prosecution. It is evident from the order that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds on merits, nor has there been any consideration of the assessee’s request seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. In the present case we find that the assessee, being an agriculturist from a rural background with limited awareness of online compliance procedures, has shown reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). The dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits has resulted in denial of proper opportunity to the assessee. It is well settled that the first appellate authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on each ground raised and, wherever applicable, must examine the admissibility of additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A. Since these requirements have not been fulfilled, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide all issues afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also consider the assessee’s request for admission of additional evidence in accordance with law. The assessee, in turn, shall extend full cooperation and furnish all information and documents as may be required. We clarify that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the delay is condoned and the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.