Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed 15 days late due to medical treatment. The assessee's representative did not appear for hearings at both the CIT(A) and Tribunal level. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeals considering the medical reasons and the non-deliberate nature of the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remanded.
Sections Cited
Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 03/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2025 O R D E R PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. Both these appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] both dated 23/06/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively as per the grounds of appeal on record. Both these appeals of the assessee are common facts and grounds, therefore, both these appeals are clubbed and heard together and being decided by this common order.
2. At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of assessee, though, the notice of hearing have been duly served on the given address.
3. Submissions of the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue were recorded and the documents have been given careful consideration while the matter is taken as heard.
& 197/Ran/2023 Nirmala Tulsyan Vs ACIT 4. We find from perusal of record that there are delay of 15 days each in filing of both these appeals of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 23/06/2023, however, these appeals are filed on 09/09/2023. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that the assessee was out of station for long time for medical treatment due to which she could not file appeals within stipulated time period. The assessee stated that the delay in filing appeals are neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay is not inordinate. The assessee has good case on merit would suffer prejudice if delay is not condoned in her case and the appeals are not adjudicated on merit.
On merit of the case, the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition on account of unexplained credit in her bank account. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeals of assessee were dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee prayed to give one more opportunity and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue submits that on the issue of condonation of delay, the Bench may take appropriate view in accordance with law. On merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that sufficient opportunities have already been provided to the assessee as evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr.DR, therefore, submitted that even before the Tribunal, neither the assessee has appeared nor any & 197/Ran/2023 Nirmala Tulsyan Vs ACIT application for adjournment has been given. Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld.
We have considered the submissions of the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue and the contents of application filed by the assessee. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First we shall consider the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the impugned order was passed on 23/06/2023, however, the present appeals are filed on 09/09/2023, the system has calculated delay of 15 days each in filing both the appeals. As recorded above, the assessee submitted that due to medical treatment taken by the assessee, she could not file appeals within the time limit. Considering the fact that the delay is not inordinate and seems to be not intentional, therefore, delay of 15 days in filing both these appeals are condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case.
We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The assessee was served with various notices to substantiate the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A). However, no compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A), in absence of any submission or evidence, confirmed the addition. Now before us, again none has appeared to substantiate her case. It is correct that reasonable opportunities have been provided to the assessee, still, there was no compliance. The facts remain that the income tax laws are within the ambit of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and therefore, given the facts and circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit of doubt has to be attributed