POOJA JIGARBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(8), SURAT

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)’] dated 24.06.2024 arising out of the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,80,402/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of amount paid towards

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted assessee was a home maker and her credit cards were operated by her erstwhile husband with whom the assessee has now got divorced. The ld. counsel has further submitted that even the tax matters of the assessee were also looked after by her erstwhile husband. That she was not aware of the present income tax proceedings either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A). That there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) of 632 days. That an application was filed before the CIT(A) for condonation of delay pleading that the assessee was not served any notice or the copy of the assessment order and was not aware of the passing of the impugned assessment order. It was also explained before the CIT(A) that the assessee’s relations with her erstwhile husband ran into rough weather and ultimately the assessee took divorce from him. Due to the aforesaid circumstances, there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) rejected application for condonation of delay and, thereby, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that even the case of the assessee remained un-represented before the Assessing Officer also. She, therefore, has requested that the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer and the assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case. 2