AMAR SINGH VILLAGE DARBA KALAN, SIRSA HARYANA,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA

5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Amar Singh, is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2013–14, the Ld. AO passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 19.03.2022 under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 86,80,160/-. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued through the Income Tax portal during the reassessment proceedings. The matter was further referred to the Verification Unit for physical service of notices; however, no response was received from the assessee. In view of the continued non-compliance and absence of any representation, the Ld. AO concluded that the assessee had failed to participate in the reassessment proceedings and, accordingly, proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte by invoking the best judgment provisions under the Act.

4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.11.2022 with a delay of 217 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted that the delay was unintentional and occurred due to a lack of awareness about the assessment proceedings. It was explained that the email ID registered on the Income Tax portal was inactive, and owing to his illiteracy and lack of familiarity with digital systems, the assessee was not aware of the developments in the case. Upon consultation with his counsel, the assessee came to know of the assessment order and thereafter promptly filed the appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay, holding that the assessee had failed to establish “sufficient cause” as required under the law. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash (2024), wherein it was held that litigants must remain vigilant about their legal rights and cannot simply attribute delays to the conduct of their counsel. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the assessee did not take timely steps to update his contact information on the Income Tax portal, despite being aware that the registered email ID was inactive.

5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an illiterate individual with no familiarity or exposure to digital procedures or the functioning of the Income Tax portal. It was contended that the statutory notices were never served upon the assessee through physical means, and he remained completely unaware of the reassessment proceedings until he was informed by his counsel on 18.11.2022. The Ld. AR emphasized that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but was caused due to bona fide reasons stemming from the assessee’s ignorance and lack of access to electronic communication. The Ld. AR pleaded that, in the interest of natural justice, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits after granting due opportunity to the assessee.