Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals (quantum and penalty) against ex-parte assessment and penalty orders for AY 2015-16, which were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. The appeals before the ITAT were time-barred by 383 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, attributing the non-compliance and delay to a severe brain stroke that occurred in 2020, leading to a permanent physical disability and inability to manage his affairs or access his e-filing account, resulting in him becoming aware of the orders only upon receiving demand recovery letters in November 2024.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's medical condition as a valid reason for non-compliance. Both the quantum and penalty matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to first address the legal issues pertaining to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (u/s 148/148A(d)) and then, if necessary, proceed to the merits of the case.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals; validity of ex-parte assessment and penalty orders due to assessee's medical non-compliance; legality of the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction under sections 148/148A(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 144, 250, 148, 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Anil Kumar Agarwala, FCA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 04.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06.08.2025
ORDER
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeal of the same assessee, one pertains to quantum and the other pertains to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). For the sake of convenience both of these appeals are being disposed of through a single order.
Both these appeals are time barred by 383 days. ITA 33/Gty/2025 (quantum matter) will be taken as a lead case. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay as under:
& 34/GTY/2025 Sofiqul Islam “I Sofiqul Islam, son of Bassu Miyan, aged 46 years, resident of Bogolijan, North Lakhimpur, 787001, District: Lakhimpur in the state of Assam solemnly affirm and declare as follows:
1. 1. THAT I am a holder of PAN number AARPI2025E; 2. That I am a permanent resident of Bogolijan, North Lakhimpur, 787001, District: Lakhimpur, Assam; 3. That my assessment for the AY 2015-16 was carried out by the Income Tax Department u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 4. That order making assessment was passed on 18.02.2023 and order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was passed on 30.06.2023.
5. That I am presently facing a permanent physical disability arising from a severe Brain Stroke which occurred to me on 10.03.2020 and 1 am not able to attend to my day-to-day affairs; 6. That owing to my medical condition, I am not able to access my e-filing account regularly; 7. That the order(s) of the CIT(A) against my appeals was served through the e- filing portal and that I was not aware of the said orders; 8. That I became aware of the orders only on 18.11.2024 when I received demand recovery letters from the Assessing Officer.
9. That due to the reasons stated above, I have been unable to file appeal against the Orders of the CIT(A) within the prescribed time; 10. That I am fully conversant with the facts of this affidavit and am competent to make this declaration. Verification I, Sofiqul Islam, the above named deponent, do hereby declare and verify on oath that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my own knowledge and belief. 2.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, we hereby condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication.
& 34/GTY/2025 Sofiqul Islam Appeal in arises from order dated 31.10.2023, passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.
3.1 It is seen that in the quantum matter the Ld. AO has passed an exparte order by making an addition on account of cash deposited by the assessee. Admittedly, no return of income was filed for AY 2015-16 (the year under consideration).
3.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed mainly on the ground of the following finding:
“In total 4 hearing opportunities were provided to the assessee. The assessee has failed to respond at multiple occasions. The above details show that the appeal has been fixed repeatedly and ample opportunities have been given to the appellant. It shows that the appellant is not serious to pursue his appeal. 5.2 As the appellant has not provided any explanation or evidence in support of the grounds of appeal. I am constrained to uphold the decision made by the assessing officer for want of explanation and documentary evidences as well as on merit too. In the circumstances, the grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.” 3.2 For (penalty matter) virtually the same situation prevailed as in the quantum matter and the appeal was dismissed in an exparte manner.
“For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without deciding on the merits of the case. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to uphold the notice issued u/s 148 which was issued without jurisdiction and pursuant to an order passed u/s 148A(d) which was not based on facts and on law. For that the Learned CIT(A) erred in failing to dismiss the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 147 which was based on totally wrong facts and information & 34/GTY/2025 Sofiqul Islam and was passed in violation to the principles of Natural Justice. For that the appellant urges leave to add to, modify or delete any ground of appeal
, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
4. Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO in terms of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was faulty and not in consonance with law. On a query from the Bench regarding the non- compliance of the assessee to the notices issued by the Ld. AO/CIT(A), it was mentioned that the assessee suffered a stroke and was therefore unable to pursue his cases before the authorities below. The Ld. AR persistently argued that the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal and therefore, the assessee deserved relief at the level of ITAT only.
4.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that when there was absolutely no compliance before any of the authorities below and hence the facts regarding the assumption of jurisdiction themselves would need to be verified from the authorities below and thus the same could not be readily adjudicated at the level of ITAT.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the record before us. We find that the assessee has a good and sufficient reason for not complying with the notices issued by the authorities below fixing the case for hearing before them. We are also aware that the facts surrounding the assumption of jurisdiction would also require a degree of factual verification and since the assessee could not appear before either of the authorities below hence, we deem it fit to remand the quantum matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on the legal issues pertaining to assumption of jurisdiction and thereafter if required, on the merit also. To this effect, we set aside the impugned order. Regarding the penalty matter, since the quantum matter has been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), hence the penalty also deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on merit, in & 34/GTY/2025 Sofiqul Islam case required after the decision rendered in the quantum matter. Accordingly, the impugned order in is also remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 06.08.2025