Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was presented on 05-10-2024, and the impugned order was passed on 30-04-2024. The registry pointed out that the appeal was filed 98 days beyond the prescribed date. The assessee's AR sought condonation of delay, citing the assessee's illiteracy and lack of technological knowledge.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the assessee's illiteracy and lack of technological knowledge, and whether the CIT(A) erred by not considering the application for additional evidence and not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
69A, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “SMC-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 1242/JPR/2024
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. On 05-10-2024, above captioned appeal by the assessee was presented. The impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 30-04-2024. The Registry pointed out that the same was barred by limitation, having been filed 98 days after the prescribed date.
During the pendency of the appeal, on 16-01-2024, an application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed under the signatures of ld AR for the SHRI LADU RAM VS ITO, WARD – TONK, TONK appellant- applicant. Since the application under the signatures of the ld.AR was not maintainable, application seeking condonation of delay of 98 days has been presented today.
Firstly, arguments have been advanced on the application seeking condonation of delay. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the applicant is an uneducated person and an agriculturist from rural area, and further that he was not using any E-Mail ID or other technology.
Ld. AR has submitted that he was engaged by the appellant for filing of appeal before the ld.CIT(A) but, after having filed the appeal there, he could not apprise the assessee of the passing of impugned order, as he himself could not check the portal. Further submission of ld . AR is that in the month of Oct. 2024, he checked the income tax portal to know the status of the appeal filed through him. and that is how, he came to know of passing of the impugned order, and took steps for filing of appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. The contention is that in the given situation, the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned and the appeal be admitted.
In his affidavit, the assessee has claimed himself to be an uneducated agriculturist from rural area and also testified his lack of knowledge in use of technology or E-Mail. He has also testified that it was only in Oct. 2024 when his SHRI LADU RAM VS ITO, WARD – TONK, TONK counsel apprised him about passing of impugned order. He has also deposed that subsequently appeal was filed on 5-10-2024 before this Appellate Tribunal.
Ld.DR for the revenue has not controverted the submission put forth by the ld.AR for the applicant or testimony of the applicant contained in his affidavit.
A perusal of Form No. 35 would reveal that E-Mail address made available in Col. 17 of Form No. 35 was that of AR for the appellant. Once the assessee had availed of services of authorized representative, firstly, it was for Ld. AR to keep track of Income Tax Department Portal, as regards the appeal filed by the assessee, and also to inform him about its outcome i.e dismissal of the appeal. Even though, the assessee had authorized Ld. AR for the purposes of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was his duty as well to regularly contact his CA so as to be acquainted with the status of the appeal.
In the given situation, we deem it a fit case to allow the prayer for condonation of delay, but, while imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister Relief Fund. We order accordingly.
Arguments have been advanced by the ld.AR for the appellant and ld. DR for the Revenue. Vide impugned order dated 30-04-2024 appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 18-11-2019, relating to assessment year 2012-13 has SHRI LADU RAM VS ITO, WARD – TONK, TONK been dismissed, thereby upholding an addition of Rs,12,98,500/- , while resorting to provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Said addition was made by the AO as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the quantum of agriculturist income of Rs.9,01,225/- disclosed in the return of income.
Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that during pendency of the appeal before ld. CIT(A), adjournments were sought to produce certain documents, but no reply could be submitted to the show cause notice dated 17-04-2024 seeking explanation about the source of cash deposit of Rs. 3.00 lacs made on 16-09-2011 and Rs.9,98,500/- made on 28-02-2012. As is available from the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), show cause notice dated 17-04-2024 was issued for filing of reply by the assessee on or before 24-04-2024, but when no reply came from the appellant, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal. ld. AR for the appellant has stated at Bar that he could not notice the show cause notice dated 17-04-2024, but, the ld CIT(A) should have considered the written submissions furnished alongwith application for additional evidence.
A perusal of the paper book submitted on behalf of the assessee would reveal that before Ld. CIT(A), an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules was submitted by the ld.AR for the appellant with copies of certain SHRI LADU RAM VS ITO, WARD – TONK, TONK documents. However, in the impugned order, there is no mention that any such application was submitted on behalf of the assessee, what to say of the same being discussed or disposed off before confirming of the addition. In the given situation, ld. CIT(A) should have firstly dealt with the prayer made in the application seeking production of additional evidence. Since said prayer of the assessee was not considered and ld. DR for the Revenue has not controverted the submission put forth by the ld. AR for the appellant, the impugned order having been passed by the ld. CIT(A), without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, deserves to be set aside for afresh hearing. Result 12. As a result, this appeal is disposed off for statistical purposes and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. We would have remitted the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for decision of the appeal afresh, but having regard to the documents uploaded by the assessee during pendency of appeal before Learned CIT(A) and that same need verification and consideration, we deem it a fit case to restore the matter to the files of AO with original number with the direction to dispose of the matter concerning assessment afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.