Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation. The assessee had sought condonation of delay due to medical reasons and family disturbances following deaths, but this was not accepted by the CIT(A). The original assessment order was passed ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to medical and family reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity. Accordingly, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without considering reasonable cause and whether the ex-parte assessment order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144AB, 249(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065035491(1) passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
(B) In this case assessment order dated 02/03/2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144AB of the I. T. Act (DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1050310349(1) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,30,00,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- was made towards Long Term Capital Gains. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Vide impugned appellate order dated 21/05/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065035491(1), the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay on medical grounds and grounds of disturbance in the family as a result of death. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are as under:
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay of 177 days in filing of appeal without considering that there was a Reasonable Cause for delay in filing of appeal.
The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in not considering that reasons for delay were explained in the course of Appellate Proceeding on 15.09.2023.
WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO ABOVE
That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in treating the entire Sale Consideration of Rs.1,30,00,000/- from Sale of Immoveable Property as Long Term Capital Gain without allowing the benefit of Purchase Cost as Cost of Acquisition and Cost of Improvements.
That the Authorities below erred in not considering that the entire Sale Consideration cannot be treated as Long Term Capital Gain and the cost of Acquisition and cost of Improvement ought to have been allowed from the Sale Consideration.
That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.1,30,000/- deducted on Sale of Immoveable Property which is duly reflected in Form 26AS.
The present additions made are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by authorities below.”
(c) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard learned Departmental Representative.
(D) On perusal of records, we find that the assessee had provided medical papers and death certificates of family members to the learned CIT(A) in support of the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The assessee pleaded before the learned CIT(A) that there was unrest in the family as a result of death of assessee’s father-in-law and brother-in-law. It was further pleaded by the assessee that she was also suffering from severe disease. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal. Further on perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This conclusion is reached because the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient time for compliance of the notices. In all the notices, issued by the Assessing Officer, the compliance date prescribed by the Assessing Officer was a very short period after the date of issue.
(D.1) In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 21/05/2024 of the learned CIT(A) and we restore the dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,30,00,000/- to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned D.R. expressed no objection to this at the time of hearing.
(E) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 06/02/2025)