Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which was dismissed ex-parte. The appeal was delayed by 394 days. The assessee, a senior citizen with limited technical skills, explained the delay was due to challenges in accessing electronic communications and unawareness of proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable and whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 148, 49(1), 48
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC
Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Date of Hearing – 28/01/2026 Date of Order - 30/01/2026
O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 19/08/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011-12.
The present appeal is delayed by 394 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, submitting as follows: – “I am preferring appeal before your honour against the Order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act,1961 dated 19.08.2024. I humbly submit this request for condonation of delay in responding to the notices and assessment orders issued in my case. I am a senior citizen with no formal education and very limited familiarity with modern technology, particularly email and mobile-based communication. Due to my illiteracy and lack of technical skills, I have faced serious challenges in accessing and understanding any electronic communication, including SMS alerts or emails sent by the Income Tax Department. I was not aware that any notices or assessment orders had been issued to me, as I did not receive any physical (hard copy) notice at my residential address. Because of this, I was unable to respond within the prescribed timelines. The delay was neither intentional nor wilful but purely due to the limitations arising from my old age, illiteracy, and inability to comprehend digital communication. I have always intended to comply with my tax obligations, but was genuinely unaware of the pending assessment proceedings. It was only recently, after appointing a new tax consultant to assist me with my tax matters, that I was informed of the ex parte assessment orders passed against me. I immediately took steps to address the matter and rectify the situation. I respectfully submit that the delay in compliance occurred due to genuine hardship and not due to any negligence or disregard for the law. I therefore earnestly request your good office to kindly condone the delay and allow me an opportunity to present my case and comply with the proceedings. I remain committed to fulfilling all legal requirements and respectfully seek relief on reasonable grounds.”
We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag v/s MST Katiji and others: 1987 SCR (2) 387. It is well established that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having (A.Y. 2011-12) 3 perused the application filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the limitation period and therefore, we condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to decide the same.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “
1. The appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12:
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without appreciating that I had sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing as 1 am a senior citizen and, being uneducated and non tech savvy person, I faced significant challenges in reading SMS on my mobile and understanding the meaning there of. Due to my lack of formal education and the limitations that come with old age, 1 was unable to check the intimations in time on email or phone, however I had not received any hard copy of notice from department.
3. In respect of Assessment Year 2011-2012, I had entered into an agreement for sale of a plot of land situated at Survey No. 65, Hissa No. 1A, for a total consideration of 259,80,000/-, wherein I held a 50% ownership share. ! had filed the return of income on 16.11.2018 in response to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.03.2018. In the said return, I had declared an income of 245,800/- and claimed that the income arising from the transfer of the aforementioned land was agricultural income and hence exempt under the provisions of the Act.
4. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) has erred both in law and on facts by: a. Making the addition without considering the submission regarding the cost of acquisition of the subject plot; b. Disallowing the deduction towards the fair market value of the said plot as on 01.04.1981, despite the fact that the plot was inherited by the assessee from his ancestors prior to 01.04.1981, thereby ignoring the provisions of Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and unjustly denying the benefit of deduction under Section 48; c. That the learned AO erred in not accepting the claim of the appellant regarding cost of acquisition and in treating the cost as 'Nill, without affording adequate opportunity or accepting the appellant's request to adopt the Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01.04.1981, despite the land being held since prior to that date.
That the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 and the notice issued under section 148 dated 30.03.2018 are bad in law and void ab initio, as the reasons recorded do not justify belief of escapement of income and are based merely on third-party information without independent application of mind.
That the assessment order passed is bad in law and void ab initio, being based on mere assumptions and surmises, without due verification of facts and proper inquiry into the nature and character of the land.
The assessment order passed by the AO be quashed or modified by allowing appropriate relief in respect of nature of land and cost of acquisition.
That the learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the case on merits and did not consider the grounds of appeal and material already placed on record, thereby violating principles of natural justice.”
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte due to the non- appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Now, in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. We further find that the learned CIT(A) merely on the basis of non-compliance with notices, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee on merits, as required under section 250(6) of the Act. In CIT v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), reported in [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits. We further direct that no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to (A.Y. 2011-12) 5 the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the hearing dates as may be fixed without any default, and also submit the operational email address of the assessee to the learned CIT(A). As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2026