JIGNESH PRAVINBHAI RANA,GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

ORDER PER BENCH: These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27-05-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 wherein one appeal is quantum appeal u/s 147/144 of the Act and other two appeals are in the matter of 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act and thus raising the grounds of appeal in Form 36 of the above mentioned appeals respectively. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, the Bench noted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the above mentioned appeals on the ground of delay of 282 days u/s JIGNESH PRAVINBHAI RANA VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 147/144, 94 days delay u/s 271(1)(c) and 124 days delay u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act wherein the ld. CIT(A) has made similar narrations as under:-

‘’2.10 In view of the facts as discussed hereinabove and the judicial decisions on the matter of delay in filing appeals, this appeal is not admitted for adjudication as it is delayed for not filed within the time limit provided and the reason provided by the appellant does not fall within the ambit of sufficient cause for the delay. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) praying therein as under:- AFFIDAVIT I, Jignesh Prasinbhai Rana, Age about 51 years, residing at Block No G 1, Flat No 1204, 12th Floor, Copper Stone Society, Besides Avadh Utopia Club, Opposite Surat Airport, Surat Dumas Road, Surat-395007 do solemnly affirm and stated as under:

I am a salaried indindual who has been transferred to various cities due to my job and I am employed in Surat since 2018. 1 was unaware of the online income tax proceedings and related notices and all the assessment notices for A.Y. 2015-16 were issued and served to email id of my former consultant at rajpurohitcgmail.com and I was not aware about notices issued by the Income Tax Department and hence, no compliance for notices were made during the assessment proceeding. The Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed on 10.03.2023 and was also sent to the aforementioned email address As I had no knowledge of these proceedings, I remained unaware of the assessment order Subsequently, a notice for the recovery of demand was physically served at my parental address in Gandhinagar, where my elderly mother resides. Later during a visit to Gandhinagar, I discovered the service of notice of recovery of demand fur A.Y 2015-16. Upon returning to Surat, I visited to new consultant, who informed me that the assessment order had already been passed. We promptly downloaded the assessment JIGNESH PRAVINBHAI RANA VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR order and filed an appeal with the Hoh’ble CIT(A) on 16-01-2024. As a result, there was delay of 282 daysl in filing the appeal with Hon’ble CIT)A). I solemnly state that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein that no part of it is false.’’ The assessee has also filed the similar affidavit as to the delay of filing the appeal by 94 days in the matter of Section 271(1)© and 124 days in the matter of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. It may be noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A) and the AO. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he may be granted one more opportunity to argue the case before the Department as he could not receive the notices from the department and thus the appeal may be restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO and ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed and not admitted the appeals of the assessee on the ground of not timely filing the appeals before him. From the records, it is noted that the assessee was not vigilant in informing the substitute new e-mail address to the department which indicates that the assessee was lethargic but from the affidavit of the assessee it appears that the assessee was not aware about the notices issued by the Income Tax Department and thus no compliance for notices were made during the assessment proceedings. During the course of hearing, the JIGNESH PRAVINBHAI RANA VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee was deprived off to avail off sufficient opportunity to argue the case before the Department and thus the appeals of the assessee may be restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication. 2.5 Be that as it may since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case for which a cost of Rs.2.000/- is imposed upon the assessee which will be deposited by the assessee in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. However, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or JIGNESH PRAVINBHAI RANA VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 2.7 It may be noted that since the quantum appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication, therefore the penalty appeals will be decided based on the outcome of the quantum appeal. Accordingly, penalty appeals are disposed off. 3.0 In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court 04/10/2024.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 04/10/2024 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Jignesh Pravinbhai Rana, Gandhinagar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 1(2) Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.913/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत