MS. NAYDU KUMARI,MADHEPURA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 89/PAT/2025Status: HeardITAT Patna18 July 2025AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 272 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reason for the delay (demise of her Authorized Representative) to be genuine and bonafide. The Revenue did not object to the condonation. The Tribunal noted that both the AO and the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders as the assessee failed to furnish documents or submissions before them. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present her case, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings by filing essential documentary evidence to prove her case. The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes, with a direction to the AO to pass a fresh order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Naydu Kumari, an individual and a doctor, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring a total income of ₹21,73,890. Her case was selected for scrutiny, and notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The assessee failed to furnish the required details and documents. A show cause notice was issued regarding large cash deposits in her savings bank accounts. The assessee made no compliance, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to add ₹50,00,000 as undisclosed money under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, Patna, with a delay of 272 days, citing the demise of her Authorized Representative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2016-17 should be condoned? (Question of fact) Assessee's contention: The delay was due to the sudden demise of her Authorized Representative, Shri Santosh Kumar, on September 13, 2024, which caused disruption and confusion in handling tax matters. The delay is not due to negligence and should be condoned to decide the case on merit. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay. 2. Whether the matter should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for passing a fresh order, allowing the assessee an opportunity to place documentary evidence? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act) Assessee's contention: The assessee's Authorized Representative prayed that the appeal be remitted back to the AO to provide an opportunity to submit documentary evidence in support of her claim and to pass a fresh order. Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not raise any objection to this prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘Patna’ BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

(Assessment Year: 2016-17) DC/AC, Circle 3 Naydu Kumari Purnea, Patna Tunyahi Road, Ward No.25, Income Tax Office, Near Jail Vs. Bihar-852113 Chowk, NH-31, Purnea, Bihar-854301 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. BVRPK7979K Assessee by : Shri Jagdish Shetty, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR Date of hearing: 07.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(E)”] dated 03.04.2024 for A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 242 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition, which are as follows-

“I, Naydu Kumari, daughter of Bijendra Yadav, aged about 46 years, residing at Tunyahi Road, Ward No. 25, Madhepura, Patna, Bihar, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I am a Doctor by profession and practicing in Naydu Medicare and Research Center (PAN: BVRPK7979K).

Ms. Naydu Kumari; A.Y. 2016-17 2. That for the assessment year 2016-17 an appeal has been filed before the of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT (A)].

3.

That the ld. CIT (A) has passed an order under section 250 dismissing my appeal for non-prosecution.

4. That due to the sudden and unfortunate demise of my Authorized Representative, Shri. Santosh Kumar, on 13th September 2024, I was unable to proceed with the timely preparation and filing of the appeal before Hon'ble ITAT.

5. That Late Shri. (CA) Santosh Kumar was handling all tax-related matters on my behalf and his/ her sudden demise caused significant disruption and confusion regarding the appeal process.

6. That immediately thereafter I approached a different consultant for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"], Patna 7. That an appeal ought to have been filed before the Hon'ble ITAT on or before 01st June, 2024. But the same is now filed with a delay of 272 days.

8. It is prayed before the Hon'ble ITAT to condone the delay in filing the appeal as the delay is not due to any negligence or lapses on my part.

Naydu Kumar (Deponent)” 03. On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.

4.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee being an individual and by profession Doctor has filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17, declaring total income at ₹21,73,890/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued but in response to the said notice, the assessee Ms. Naydu Kumari; A.Y. 2016-17 failed to furnish the required detail/ documents. A show cause notice has also been issued requiring into furnishing all the details for large cash deposits made into the savings bank accounts of Bank of Baroda, HDFC bank and Axis bank. The assessee failed to make any compliance, as a result of which the ld. AO has added an amount of ₹50,00,000/- as undisclosed money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein also the appeal of the assessee have been dismissed as assessee failed to submit any submission or evidences during the appellate proceedings.

5.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee has preferred the appeal before us.

6.

The ld. AR instead of arguing into the merits of the case only prayed that the appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO after giving an opportunity to the assessee to place all the documentary evidences in support of her claim that direction to pass a fresh order.

7.

The ld. DR did raise any objection for the same.

8.

Upon hearing the submissions of the respected parties, we have perused the order of the ld. lower authorities and find that the order passed by both the authorities are ex-parte order. The assessee did not furnish any documents either before the ld. AO or before the ld. CIT (A). The prayer of the assessee is that the assessee has to give an opportunity to place his case before the ld. Assessing Officer. For the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. AO for passing a fresh order. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the proceedings by filing documentary

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →