JAIN SHIKSHA VIKASH SAMITI ,SULTANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an AOP. The assessee has not filed income tax return for the year under consideration. During the year, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.17,79,226/- in savings bank account. In order to verify the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee to furnish reply with supporting evidences, if any. Since the assessee failed to furnish reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed order u/s 144/147 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,79,226/-. The assessment order was passed ex-parte qua the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 17/01/2025, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) did not decide the assessee’s appeal on merits. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by learned CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee had requested for condonation of delay on medical ground. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

During the course of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, we heard learned Sr. D.R. and perused the materials on record. From the facts emerging from records and as pleaded by assessee in grounds of appeal, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee had sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, for not filing appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. There was no mala-fide intention behind filing the appeal belatedly. The delay in filing of appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. In this case the Assessing Officer had passed ex- parte assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied within the meaning of section 249(3), that the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A) within prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. Further, on perusal of the assessment order and the impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A), we are of the view, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case before us, that if the assessee has any grievance regarding reasonable opportunity not being provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings; the learned CIT(A) had no occasion to examine this matter as learned CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine, on the ground that the appeal filed in the office of learned CIT(A) was barred by limitation. Therefore, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, this matter should be first considered by learned CIT(A), as CIT(A) is the first appellate forum.

In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned appellate order. The learned CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay in filing of appeal in the office of learned CIT(A); and to admit the appeal. The learned CIT(A) is further directed to pass de novo order, which should be a speaking order on merits, on various grounds of appeal in the assessee’s appeal filed in the office of the learned CIT(A).

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