Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee was assessed under section 144 for AY 2016-17, with an addition of Rs. 25,17,933/- representing 50% of interest on enhanced compensation received from NOIDA, which the assessee claimed as exempt under section 10(37). The appeal to CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte, and the matter was not adjudicated on merits. A delay of 459 days occurred in filing the appeal to the Tribunal, which the assessee attributed to illiteracy and unfamiliarity with faceless assessment procedures.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as bona fide and reasonable. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the reassessment order under Section 144 and the addition of interest on enhanced compensation were justified. 2. Whether the interest on compensation is exempt under Section 10(37) and if interest under Sections 234A/B should be charged. 3. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. 4. Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 28, Section 10(37), Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 250, Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
Date of Hearing 14.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2024 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.11.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:-
1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.25,17,930/- by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice.
3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,17,930/-when interest on compensation awarded under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is exempt under section 10(37) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act.
There is a delay of 459 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit dated 19.04.2024 and an application dated 19.04.2024 submitting as under and requested to condone the delay:-
3.1. On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the request for above condonation.
3.2. We have considered the submission made by the assessee for the condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee is an illiterate person and his explanation that he was not familiar with the scheme of faceless assessment and therefore there was a delay in filing the appeal, appears to be bona fide and reasonable. Considering these facts, we hereby condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing.
Brief facts of the case:- The assessment in this case was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by treating an amount of Rs.25,17,933/- being 50% of interest of enhanced compensation of Rs.50,35,866/- received by the assessee from New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) on which TDS amounting to Rs.5,03,587/- was deducted, which was reflected in Form No.26AS of the assessee.
4.1. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which again was dismissed ex-parte. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the matter on merits.
5 Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was an illiterate person and could not represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A) due to his ignorance and not too being familiar with the income tax proceedings. It was further submitted that there was more than one claimant in respect of the interest on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.50,35,866/- for which the assessee requested that the case may be set-aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the facts before him.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the entire facts in perspective in order to subserve the interests of natural justice and to provide an opportunity to the assessee to effectively represent his case, the order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th October, 2024.