Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The assessment order was passed on March 13, 2024, under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and allegedly served via email. The appeal was filed on April 30, 2024, which was beyond the 30-day period.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an agriculturist, was not conversant with tax laws and email communication. The physical copy of the assessment order was not served, and the email may not have reached her. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation without considering the assessee's circumstances and without providing an opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
िनधा��रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by : Sh.Arman Cajla, Advocate & Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate. राज�कीओरसे/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur,Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-05-2025 उदघोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30-05-2025 आदेश/Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06-08-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) of Rs. 29,29,750/- .The Assessee is aggrieved for dismissal
43-Chd-2025 Malkiat Kaur, Nabha 2 the appeal of the Assessee by the CIT(A) holding the same as barred by limitation.
A perusal of the impugned order of CIT(A) reveals that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 13.03.2024 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The said assessment order was allegedly served upon the assessee through e- mail. The appeal was filed before the CIT(A) on 30.04.2024. As per the ld. CIT(A), the Assessee was supposed to file appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, whereas, the case of the Assesssee is that the Assessee is an agriculturist and not conversant with the provisions of the law, hence, a minor delay in filing the appeal had occurred. The Ld. CIT(A), however, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, rejected the appeal of the Assessee in a summarily manner.
I have heard the rival contentions and gone thought the record.
The Assessee is a lady and is not conversant with the Income Tax proceedings and law. The physical copy of the assessment order was never served upon the Assessee. The assessment order was sent through e-mail which perhaps did not come to the notice of the Assessee. Under the circumstances, the minor delay occurred in filing the appeal before the CIT (A) was required be condoned. The 43-Chd-2025 Malkiat Kaur, Nabha 3 Assessee in her appeal before the CIT(A) in Form No. 35 had categorically mentioned against the column as to “whether that the notices/communication may be sent on email” as “No”. It, itself, show that the Assessee was not comfortable/conversant with the communication sent through email.
Under these circumstances, in my view, the interests of justice will be well served, if, the Assessee be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is, accordingly, set aside. The small delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby condoned. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to hear the appeal of the Assessee on merits in accordance with the law. Ld. CIT(A) will serve the notice of hearing through electronic mode as well as through physical mode service i.e. through registered post/through messenger.
With the above observations, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.