TOTA RAM SRIVASTAVA,BAREILLY vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 709/LKW/2024Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 February 20253 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal on medical grounds, as the Revenue did not object. The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) were ex-parte, and a reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue agreed that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a de novo assessment order in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the specific issue of the addition of Rs. 1,22,24,000/-. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Tota Ram Srivastava, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment year 2015-16 against an order dated 30/07/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi. The appeal was filed 65 days beyond the prescribed time limit, and the assessee sought condonation of delay on medical grounds. The Revenue did not object to this application. The original assessment order, passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer on 16/03/2023 under Section 144/147 of the IT Act, made an addition of Rs. 1,22,24,000/-. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. At the ITAT hearing, the assessee was absent, and the Revenue's representative agreed to a remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 should be condoned, considering the medical grounds presented. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional, beyond their control, and supported by a medical certificate, requesting the appeal be admitted. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not express any objection to the assessee's application for condonation of delay. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment order and appellate order, passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, are valid and should be sustained. Assessee's contention: Not recorded as the assessee was absent. Revenue's contention: The learned D.R. agreed that the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 1,22,24,000/- should be restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 253(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 30/07/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067126862(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] for short].

(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 65 days. The assessee has submitted application Assessment Year:2015-16 2 for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal on medical ground, supported by medical certificate; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(C) The assessment order in this case was passed on 16/03/2023 u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) ex-parte qua the assessee by making addition of Rs.1,22,24,000/-. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067126862(1) dated 30/07/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) ex-parte qua the assessee. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 30/07/2024 passed by the learned CIT(A).

(D) At the time of hearing, there was no representative from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we have heard learned Sr. Departmental Representative. He relied on the orders dated 16/03/2023 and dated 30/07/2024 passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) respectively. On perusal of records, it is seen that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee Further, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the Assessment Year:2015-16 3 assessee. Learned D.R. for Revenue was in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding aforesaid addition of Rs.1,22,24,000/- may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on this specific issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law on this specific issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

(E) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on 11/02/2025)

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →