Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 234-day delay, which the CIT(A) deemed without reasonable cause. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to a dormant email address and they were unaware of the proceedings until receiving a physical penalty order.
Held
The Tribunal found that there was a bonafide reason for the delay, citing the assessee's senior citizen status and reliance on a dormant email address for communication. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was liable to be condoned due to the assessee being unaware of the proceedings due to technical reasons.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeal arises out of order passed by NFAC Delhi dated 28.2.2024 for assessment year 2016-17.
The ld. A.R. submitted that before the ld. CIT(A), there was a delay in filing the appeal of about 234 days. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without condoning the delay by holding that no reasonable cause was made out.
Before this Tribunal, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating that all the notices issued to the assessee were sent to e-mail address mmrmutha@gmail.com. Even the assessment order was issued to this e-mail only. It is submitted that this e-mail was dormant mail address and assessee was not well versed with the technology because of which assessee rarely check the mail in box.
The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee became aware of the assessment order having passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of Mahaveerchand, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) only when the assessee received a physical copy of the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is submitted that the assessee immediately approached the various representatives who advised assessee to file appeal before the ld. CIT(A), thereby causing a delay of 234 days. The ld. A.R. submitted that for the above reasons, assessee could not file the appeal within the period of limitation before the first appellate authority.
We have perused the submissions advanced in respect of the condonation of delay. 5.1 We note that assessee is a senior citizen and the e-mail ID provided by the assessee on the income tax portal is cmorebangalore@gmail.com. As the e-mails went on a dormant mail ID as mentioned in the affidavit filed by the assessee before this Tribunal today, assessee was unaware of the proceedings and the assessment orders having passed for the year under consideration. In our opinion, there is a bonafide reason for the delay having caused in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. In this regard, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) and we are inclined to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. No purpose will be served by remanding the appeal to the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as the assessment order passed is also ex-parte. In the interest of justice, we remand the appeal back to the file of ld. AO for de-novo assessment. Assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidences in respect of the claims and the ld. AO is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and pass a detailed order on merits. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Mahaveerchand, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th Apr, 2024