SHRI VAKEEL SINGH S/O.SH.CHHOTA SINGH,MANSA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Adv. :

Hearing: 21.05.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.10.2024 passed u/s 250 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC dated 02.02.2024 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in not condoning the delay of 24 days in filing first appeal as the assessee is a agriculturist and have no knowledge of income tax law which is complex in nature. The appeal was filed through CA student.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee could not comply with the various notices issued for hearing of appeal as he was not aware of the same as the notices were sent on e mail of CA who filed return. That the CA had left practice and joined job and did not check the previous mails. He did not intimate the assessee about the appellate proceedings.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee did not receive the various notices issued for hearing of appeal by NFAC, Delhi. So could not comply with various notices resulting in ex-parte appellate order.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CA filed the return of income of assessee wrongly by mentioning figures of agricultural income of some other assessee. The assessee was unaware of wrong figures filed by CA. So, the mistake of CA cannot be basis of addition in case of assessee. Accordingly, the addition is liable to be deleted.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee could not comply with various notices issued to make scrutiny assessment as he was not aware of assessment proceedings initiated. The CA who filed ITR had left city and joined job in Delhi NCR. He did not intimate

3 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 the assessee about assessment proceedings. So, ex-parte assessment order was passed. So, no reasonable opportunity given to assessee to explain the case.

That any other relief may kindly be granted to the assessee to whom he is found entitled at the time of hearing of appeal.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and has filed

return of income declaring total income at Rs.2,54,690/- (plus agricultural income of

Rs.1.62 cores). In course of assessment proceedings, there has not been any response

from the assessee to various notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2) followed by notices

u/s 142(1) and in absence of any explanations or documentary evidences in support

of the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee, the assessment has been

completed ex-parte by determining the total income at Rs.1,65,23,685/- (which

includes the agricultural income of Rs.1.62 crores).

The appeal preferred before the ld. CIT(A) by the assessee, has been dismissed

in limine, because the appeal was not admitted for hearing on merits on account of

belated filing of the appeal by 24 days, the delay not being condoned. The

observations of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“2.8 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands. In cases where the delay has not been explained with evidences and in

4 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 fact there is an unexplained delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, discretion of the appellate authority in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. 2.9 In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the assessee had not only remained negligent regarding the process of law and had filed the appeal after prescribed time by 24 days but had also failed to come forth with any plausible explanation as regards the sufficient reasons leading to the said delay, therefore, there appears to be no reason to adopt a liberal view and condone the same.

2.10 For these reasons, the delay in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s.249(3) of the Act for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation u/s.249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s. 5 of Limitation Act and hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby rejected.

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED in-limine.”

Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in

the memorandum of appeal.

The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal has been belatedly filed

by 24 days before the ld. first appellate authority because the notices were sent on e-

mail id of the chartered accountant who filed the return and in this case, the

concerned CA has already left practice and join service. As such, even though the

order has been served in the e-mail id of the previous chartered accountant, no

information has been passed on to the assessee by the said CA. He further submitted

that he was not at all aware that the assessment proceedings are ongoing and it is his

5 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 contention that the previous chartered accountant who submitted the return has filled

up incorrect figure in the ITR as far as agricultural income is concerned. However,

the ld. AR of the assessee could not specify the correct figures of agricultural income

before us and no further documents in respect of agricultural income has been filed

before the Tribunal. We also observe that the name of the chartered accountant of the

assessee who filed the return and to whose e-mail id, the order has been sent has not

been disclosed by the assessee before the Tribunal.

However, considering all factual issues and taking into consideration that

whatever, that is submitted in the grounds of appeal by the assessee are accepted as

correct, and also considering the fact that the delay is marginal delay of 24 (twenty

four) days only, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the

matter is remanded back to the files of the ld. CIT(A), for admitting the appeal to be

considered for decision on the grounds contained in Form No. 35, on merits of the

case. The assessee is also directed to file all documentary evidences, explanations

and submissions in support of his agricultural income for proper adjudication of the

grounds of appeal and to fully cooperate with the first appellate authority in appellate

proceedings. The assessee shall be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard,

(and necessary report may be called for by the ld. first appellate authority if

required).

6 I.T.A. No. 634/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 8. We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all contentions are left open.

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

Order pronounced in open court as on 27.05.2025.

Sd/- Sd/- (Brajesh Kumar Singh) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order

SHRI VAKEEL SINGH S/O.SH.CHHOTA SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA