Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an 85-year-old illiterate agriculturist, failed to appear before the lower authorities due to misunderstanding legal procedures and language barriers. The appeal was dismissed for non-appearance and lack of substantiation.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's illiteracy and age, recognizing the principles of natural justice and Audi Alteram Partem. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the assessee's circumstances.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-appearance and lack of substantiation, or if an opportunity should be granted to an aged and illiterate assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 249 of Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 443/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 07-02-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 raising therein following the grounds. ‘’1. That the order of the ld. CIT(A) is wrong on the facts as he has misappreciated the facts as available on record while deciding the appeal.
2 HANUMAN SAHAY VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, the instant order of the ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside to the AO for reconsideration of the matter on account of the reason that the appellant could not make submission before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) on account of his illiteracy.’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee aged about 85 years old has filed an affidavit praying therein that the assessee is an illiterate person and does not know the papers typed in English by the Advocate and thus the delay of 01 day occurred to make understand the documents to be produced before the Tribunal 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the documents placed before the Bench, it is noted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee . Hence, the delay is condoned. 3.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-appearance and not substantiating any documentary evidence at the time of hearing of the appeal. The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’ 4.5 However, in the interest of natural justice, the case of appellant was examined on merit in the light of grounds of appeal and Statement of Facts filed. It is found that the issues raised by the appellant through various grounds of appeal have 3 HANUMAN SAHAY VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR been considered by the A.O during the assessment proceedings, but the same could not be contested or rebutted during the appeal proceedings in view of the fact that the appellant has failed to avail of the opportunities provided. The appellant did not file any response to notices except for one request for adjournment on 17.11.2021. In the absence of any substantiation or any documentary evidence filed in support of grounds of appeal
, it can only be concluded that the appellant has no evidence or explanation to offer in respect of the additions made in the assessment order that is the subject matter of appeal. Accordingly, being thus found to be without substance all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee mainly prayed that the assessee being an aged person of 85 years as well as illiterate person could not advance his submissions before both the authorities and thus the assessee may be given one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the AO and also put forth his submission with a view to settling the dispute of addition made by the AO. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. 3.4 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). It is also noticed that the assessee was granted several opportunities but the assessee neither cooperated nor responded and not offered any explanation before the lower authorities to justify its claim. The Bench is of 4 HANUMAN SAHAY VS ITO, WARD 7(4), JAIPUR the view that the appellant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about judicial proceedings pending with the Income Tax Authorities against him or initiated at his instance. After filing the appeal or requesting for adjournment, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and not respond to the notices at all. In this regard, the Bench rely on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in Moddus Media Pvt vs M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. (RFA 497/201 dated 18th May,2017). It is noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs. The Spl Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, dated 22.08.2013) observed as under (emphasis supplied): "13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale... An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches."