Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the NFAC with a delay of 187 days. The assessee, a senior citizen and homemaker, claimed she did not receive the order due to providing her son's email and later learned about it when contacted by the Income Tax Department for recovery. She subsequently downloaded the order and filed the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and not tech-savvy. On merit, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-maintainability due to non-payment of advance tax, which was incorrect as the assessee, being a senior citizen with no business income, was immune from such payment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of non-maintainability due to non-payment of advance tax.
Sections Cited
249(iv)(b), 207
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 30/01/2024 in 24/1060275662(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.
At the outset, it was seen that there was a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee for 187 days. The assessee has filed the condonation petition supported by the Affidavit stating that she has given the email. ID of her son and she could not receive the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). As per the assessee, she came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) upon receiving the call from the Income-tax Department for the recovery of the outstanding demand. Immediately, thereafter the assessee with the help of Tax Consultant downloaded the order from the Income tax portal and preferred an appeal before the ITO. However, in this process a delay of 187 days has occurred.
The ld. AR at the time of hearing further submitted that the assessee during the relevant time was a Senior Citizen, not tech savvy and a home maker. Accordingly, the ld. AR prayed before us to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. DR contended that the assessee is negligent in perusing the income tax matters. As such, the assessee has not filed any return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, neither appeared during the assessment proceedings nor appellate proceedings, therefore, as per the ld. DR, the assessee being negligent should not be given the benefit of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The ld. AR in her rejoinder reiterated that the assessee being a senior citizen and non-tech savvy, a sympathetic view should be adopted. The ld. AR before us also took the responsibility for making necessary compliances during the proceedings before the authorities below if the delay is condoned.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the aspect of senior citizen, we are inclined to take a sympathetic view. Accordingly in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit.
On merit of the matter, at the threshold, we note that the assessee has neither appeared before the AO nor before ld. CIT(A). It is also seen that the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee was under the obligation to make the payment of advance tax before filing the appeal as per the provisions of sec. 249(iv)(b) of the Act. With respect to the finding of the ld. CIT(A), we note that the assessee being a senior citizen and having no business income gets immunity from the payment of advance tax as provided u/s 207 of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal of the assessee as non maintainable in terms of the violation of the provisions of sec. 249(iv)(b) of the Act.
Nevertheless, the assessee failed to appear before the authorities below to represent her case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to represent her case. It is directed to the assessee not to seek any adjournment and makes all necessary compliances. It is also pertinent to note that the ld. AR at the time of hearing before us has also undertaken the responsibility for necessary compliances before the AO. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes.