Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an illiterate agriculturist, failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to alleged improper service of notices and lack of access to email. The assessment was made ex-parte, confirming an addition of Rs. 97,34,381/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing that the assessee be afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders were vitiated due to non-service of notices and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250, 144, 69A, 151, 282, 142(1), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03/11/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: All the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi each dt. 25/10/2024 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Since, the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together therefore they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. We shall take up the appeal in for the A.Y. 2012- 13 as a lead case for discussion, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in a ex-parte manner and which is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That no notice of hearing in physical mode or otherwise was served upon the assessee and all the notices were sent on the email.id of the assessee and as the assessee is illiterate and did not have access to his email.id and, as such, there was a reasonable cause in not attending the hearing before the CIT(A).
Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal
, the CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the appeal on merits of the case and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on account of non-prosecution, which was only on account reasonable cause.
4. That on merits the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer and thereby assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 97,34,381/-.
5. That the confirmation of order of the Assessing Officer is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
4. Beside these grounds the assessee has also raised an additional ground which read as under:
1. That the Worthy CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that in the case of assessee, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served upon the assessee and without such service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessment order as passed by the Ld. AO deserves to be quashed as per binding case law of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. Income Tax Officer as reported in (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC) and various other judgements including judgment of the jurisdictional Bench.
The appeal is accompanied by an application seeking condonation of a delay of ninety-seven days in filing before the Tribunal.
6. Briefly stated, the case of the assessee was reopened on the allegation of unexplained cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,42,27,000 in a bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce). A notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2019 and further notices under section 142(1) dated 05.07.2019 and 05.11.2019 as well as a final show- cause dated 25.11.2019 were issued by the Assessing Officer, Ward-Sunam. 6.1 According to the assessment order and the NFAC appellate order, these notices remained uncomplied with and the assessment was framed ex- parte under section 144 read with section 147 on 30.11.2019 making an addition under section 69A of Rs.97,34,381. 6.2 The Ld. AR for the assessee contends that he is an illiterate senior-citizen agriculturist residing at his ancestral house in Village Mardanheri, Samana; that notices were either sent or affixed at an incorrect address and not served in the manner prescribed by section 282 and the relevant rules; 6.3 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee acquired the knowledge of the concluded proceedings only upon recovery of Rs.4,60,356.37 from his bank account on 23.11.2022; and thereafter applied for inspection on 13.02.2023, received copies on 14.02.2023 and filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 21.02.2023.
7. The NFAC, after issuing four e-notices of hearing dated 14.08.2024, 12.09.2024, 25.09.2024 and 16.10.2024, dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 25.10.2024 upholding the assessment.
Feeling aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal on 04.04.2025 against the said order, computing the due date as 24.12.2024. Consequently, there is a delay of ninety-seven days.
The Ld. AR had submitted that the non-appearance before the Ld. The Assessing Officer was because the notices were not served on the assessee's addresses, and further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was also because the order has not been received by the assessee passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee only came to know about the passing of the assessment order when the Assessing Officer initiated the recovery proceedings against the assessee.
In the grounds raised before us, the assessee assails the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) as violative of natural justice; challenges the very assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147/148 for want of valid reasons to believe and for invalid service of notice under section 148 including defective affixture and non-compliance with section 282 and Rule 127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the lower authority .
We have considered the condonation plea. The assessee is an illiterate agriculturist and asserts that all notices at the assessment stage were either mis-addressed or affixed improperly and that NFAC communications were only through e-mail which he was incapable of accessing. The ninety-seven- day delay is modest. In circumstances where both the assessment and the first appeal have culminated ex parte and where a live controversy persists about proper service of statutory notices, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the limitation. Adopting the settled, liberal approach for advancing substantial justice, the delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks one effective opportunity to present primary material, including bank statements, agricultural land and crop records (jamabandi, girdawari, mandi sale slips), and a cash flow to explain the deposits. In the totality of facts and without expressing any opinion on the rival contentions regarding jurisdiction under sections 147/148/151/282 or on the sustainability of the addition under section 69A, we consider it just and proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording adequate opportunity. 12.2 In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellate order of the CIT(A), NFAC dated 25.10.2024 and the assessment order dated 30.11.2019 are set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication de novo as directed hereinabove. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the delay in filing is condoned.
Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances involved in to 510/Chd/2025 are identical to those in ITA No. 507/Chd/2025. It was further submitted that these appeals arise from collateral proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer, wherein, due to non- receipt of notices at the correct address, the assessee could not effectively respond before the lower authorities. Accordingly, in view of the identical issues and factual matrix, our findings and directions rendered in shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 508 to 510/Chd/2025 as well, which are, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.