Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against CIT(A) orders confirming additions for AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19, which were dismissed as time-barred due to a 96-day delay. The assessee contended the delay was unintentional, citing lack of computer literacy, non-receipt of online notices, and having explicitly requested physical communication in appeal Form No.35.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interests of justice, restored both quantum appeals (ITA Nos. 1797 & 1798) to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- per appeal to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The penalty appeal (ITA No. 1799) was also restored to the CIT(A) to be decided concurrently with the quantum appeals.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeals as time-barred due to delay in filing and non-receipt of online notices; entitlement to an opportunity for a fresh hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
1-3. Neelam Mehtani 1-3. The ITO बनाम/ Shree Balaji Wind Park Ward-6(1)(1) v/s. C-1202, 12th Floor Vejalpur Now Vauishavdevi Circle Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr. Nirma University Ahmedabad – 382 421 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN:AOXPG 1184 N (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Manish J. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] of even date 04/09/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016- 17 & 2018-19.
1798 & 1799/Ahd/2025 Neelam Mehtani, vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 2 & 1798/Ahd/2025 – AYs 2016-17 & 2018-19 respectively
These two appeals are against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer relevant to AYs 2016- 17 & 2018-19.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) to show that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee holding the same as barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was a delay of 96 days in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). He has further submitted that it was explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that a delay in filing the appeals was not intentional, rather the assessee was not conversant with the income-tax proceedings and did not come to the knowledge of the ‘online’ notices sent by the AO as the assessee was not a computer savvy. Therefore, neither the assessee could participate in the assessment proceedings nor the passing of the assessment order came to the knowledge of the assessee, resulting into delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further drawn our attention to the appeal Form No.35 to submit that even in the appeal Form No.35, the assessee had mentioned that the notices be sent to her in physical form. The assessee had also mentioned her address in appeal Form No.35 for service of notice. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sent the notices ‘online’ which did not come to the notice of the assessee. That the assessee had not consented in the appeal Form No.35 for sending the notices on email. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal(s) of the assessee even without giving proper hearing to the assessee, holding that the same was barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has a fair case on merits and the 1798 & 1799/Ahd/2025 Neelam Mehtani, vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 3 assessee may be given an opportunity to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A).
In our view, the interests of justice will be well served, if the assessee be given an opportunity to present her case(s) before the Ld.CIT(A), however, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5,000/- in each appeal, in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Both the appeals are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh, however, subject to furnishing of evidence before the CIT(A) by the assessee of deposit of Rs.5,000/- in each case, to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
With the above observations, & 1798/Ahd/2025 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
So far as the penalty levied u/s.271AAC of the Act, in this appeal, is concerned, since we have set aside the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal, therefore, the matter relating to penalty appeal proceedings is also restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with quantum appeals.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24 /02/2026. ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 24/02/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS , 1798 & 1799/Ahd/2025 Neelam Mehtani, vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 4