Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file her return of income for AY 2010-11, and despite notices under Section 148 and Section 142(1), no response was filed. The AO made an addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- based on time deposits found through ITS details. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being a senior citizen and not well-versed with technology. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present her case and documents, emphasizing that the assessee should not seek frivolous adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present her case on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 271(1)(c), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 Smt.Asha Panagariya cuke The ITO Vs. A43,New Light Colony, Tonk Road Ward -1 (1) Jaipur- 302 018 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOVPP 9660 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Anoop Bhatia, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 28/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-12, Delhi dated 12.11.2024 for the assessment year 2011- 12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the total income computation of assessee at Rs. 12,00,000/-. Such determination of total income by ld. AO further confirmed by ld. CIT(A) being invalid as well as bad in law deserves to be quashed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) further failed to bring on record the remand report against the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The AO did not submit his remand report despite submitting the requisite documents. Therefore, such order passed by the CIT(A)
2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 152 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application dated 27-06-2025 for condonation of delay giving therein following reasoning. ‘’I am a senior citizen, aged 79 years, who is not well-versed with the use of technology. The communication Mail-id mentioned on the online portal belongs to me and due to my advanced age and limited understanding of use of mails, I remained unaware of the hearing neticesissued by the ld. CITIA) as well as passing of order by ld. CITIA)
It was while checking for Income tax return filing it came to my knowledge that the appellate proceedings had been been decided against me. On become aware aboutit, we took appropriate action for filing the appeal with Hon'ble ITAT after seeking professional advice from our tax consultant. The delay in the present case therefore is solely attributable to the lack of knowledge and understanding due to old age and absence of proper guidance at the relevant time.’’.
To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing therein the above facts as to the delay made in filing the appeal before ITAT. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the assessee as to condonation of delay and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and also taking into consideration the senior citizen age of 79 years SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR of the assesse, the Bench feels that the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in late filing the appeal before ITAT. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the delay so made in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by holding that the assessee had no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken by her before him and no material had been brought to argue the case before him and thus he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The narration so made by the ld.CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘4.2 It has been brought out in the preceding part of this order that above notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued by the First Appellate Authority which have remained un-complied. Therefore, apart from the assessment order, other material available to the undersigned is the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts which have been submitted by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal. Appellant has not availed any of the opportunities given by the First Appellate Authority and no submissions, documents or evidences were filed. It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant. However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gainsaying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on his part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. 4.3 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 461) (at pages 477 & 478) that appeal does not mean filing of memo of appeal but also pursing iteffectively. In cases where the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. Since, the Appellant has not presented any argument SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR and submission or any paper filed in support of its claim, the appeal is decided judiciously based on materials available on record. 4.4 It is pertinent to add here that laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful plaintiff is favoured and prejudicial of him who is careless. Viewed thus, it is presumed that the appellant has no further cogent reasoning or/and evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in this impugned appeal. It is trite that the onus is on person making the claim, and the primary responsibility/onus/burden for proving the claim made before the tax authorities (Assessing Officers/Appellate Authorities) lies with the assessee/appellant. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to even discharge the primary onus/burden statutorily & judicially cast upon him to substantiate the claims made in the grounds of appeal in spite of adequate time and opportunities given as brought out in the foregoing paragraphs. 4.5 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and is has not even once argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averment, constraining me to, dismiss this appeal as no material change has been brought out by the appellant, to what was available before the AO. Therefore, order made decided ex-parte and appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.
3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to adduce the documents required by the AO so that the issue in question could be settled. The ld.AR further submitted that the assessee had not made the FD in this assessment year and AO may examine the case of the assessee and make assessment accordingly. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld DR objected to such submission of the ld.AR of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file her return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11. It is also noticed that in spite of notice issued by the Department u/s 148 of the Act dated 27-03-2017, the assessee did not file her return of income. As per ITS details, the Department had gathered that the assessee had made time deposits amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- with ICICI Bank Ltd. Alwarthirunagar, Chennai during the year under consideration. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued vide No. 322 dated 21-07-2017 fixing the case for hearing on 03-08-2017 which was duly served. Thereafter a show cause vide letter No.1134 dated 20-11- 2017 fixing the case for hearing on 27-11-2017 was sent to the assessee through sped post which was duly served upon the assessee. In this case, the AO asked the assessee to explain the sources of time deposit of Rs.12.00 lacs but no reply was filed by the assessee. Hence, the AO had no other option except to complete the proceedings u/s 144 of the Act based on the materials available on record and thus the AO made an addition of Rs.12.00 lacs in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’During the year under consideration as per ITS detalls the assessee had made time deposits amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- with ICICI Bank Limited, Alwarthirunagar, Chennal during F.Y. 2009-10. The assessee was asked to explain the sources of above time deposit vide show cause letter no. 1134 dated SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 20.11.2017 and submit his reply on or before 27.11.2017. In response to that none attended nor any reply/written submission/return was filed till date. Under the above circumstances, I have no other option but to complete the proceedings u/s 144 of the IT Act on the basis of material available on record. Hence, an addition on Rs. 12,00,000/- is made of the IT Act, 1961. I am satisfied that the assessee concealed the particulars of her income by Rs. 12,00,000/-. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealed the particulars of her income.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the assessee had not produced any submission / materials before the ld.CIT(A) to counter the order of the AO. From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench considers the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.
SMT. ASHA PANAGARIYA VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /10/2025.