Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal as being barred by limitation. The original assessment order was passed for AY 2014-15, and the assessee claimed to have not received any notices due to being a farmer, old, and not well-versed with computers.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to properly discuss the grounds for condonation of delay and did not provide an opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without proper adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation without properly considering the grounds for condonation of delay and affording natural justice to the assessee.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 144, 144B, 148, 142(1), 143(3), 144, 143(3), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 306/JPR/2024
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, J.M.
The assessee presented this appeal on 14.03.2024. He is feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, whereby assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by Learned Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2014-15, has been upheld, and the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed, thereby computing the income of the assessee as under:-
Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO “Returned income: Rs. NIL as no ITR filed Addition (as per para 5 above): Rs. 5,85,59,424/- Assessed income : Rs. 5,85,59,424/- Allow credit of prepaid taxes after proper verification. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is charged as per law, as applicable in Assessee’s case. Issue notice of demand and challan accordingly.”
Since Assessing Officer felt satisfied that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income for the year under consideration, it was a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Feeling dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee challenged the impugned assessment order by filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), but, same came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.01.2024, being barred by limitation. Learned CIT(A) found that there was no “sufficient or good reason” for condonation or inordinate delay of more than 125 days in filing the appeal.
Feeling further dissatisfied the impugned order, the assessee has come up in appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.
Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. On behalf of the assessee, the ld. AR of the assessee has referred to para 28 of the impugned order. In said para, all the grounds raised by the assessee to show “sufficient cause” for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A), have been incorporated. Learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a farmer, an old person leading life after superannuation from a job of the government of Rajasthan, and is not well versed with operation of computer, what to say of checking of his income tax portal. Learned AR of the assessee has also referred to paras 7 and 8 of the grounds put forth in the application seeking condonation of delay in the appeal, which was presented before Ld. CIT(A). Therein, it was specifically denied that the assessee had received any notice during the period from 2020 to 2022, and further that it was around 22.06.2022 that the assessee had received a call from Income Tax Department, Karoli, Rajasthan on his mobile phone whereupon he learnt about the demand and passing of order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that due to abovesaid “sufficient cause”, the delay in filing of the appeal before ld. Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO CIT(A) deserved to be condoned, but, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding the same to be barred by limitation.
6. As noticed above, the assessment order was passed for the assessment year 2014-15, under the provisions of Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In the assessment order, it was observed that the Department was in possession of some information that the assessee had made cash deposit to the tune of Rs. 5,85,59,424/- in his saving bank account, during the financial year 2013-14, relevant to assessment year 2014-15, and further that he had not filed return of income for the said assessment year. Thereupon, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated, and after obtaining sanction of the competent authority, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued, and served upon the assessee. As further observed in the assessment order, the assessee did not comply with the same and that is how, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, but, the assessee did not reply even this notice. Thereupon, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued, and, ultimately, the case was reopened but, the assessee did not respond.
Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO Even then was more opportunity is stated to have been afforded to the assessee by way of notice issued on 17.01.2022, but, the assessee did not respond thereto.
As noticed above, the assessee presented before ld. CIT(A) certain grounds seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. It was his specific claim that he had not received any notice personally, by speed post, mobile phone or by way of e-mail ID. In case of such specific averment, Learned CIT(A) could ask the department for production of all the relevant record in proof of due service of notices, said to have been issued on different dates. From the impugned order, admittedly, it does not transpire if any, such record was requisitioned by Learned CIT(A) from the department. Learned CIT(A) could also call upon the assessee to produce whatever material was available with him, to support the grounds seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. But the impugned order does not reveal that the ld. CIT(A) granted any such opportunity to the assessee.
In the given situation, ld. CIT(A) was required to discuss each ground raised
by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO and then to record reasons for rejection thereof, before dismissing the appeal, while holding the same was barred by limitation. However, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, while simply observing in the last paragraph of the impugned order that there existed no sufficient or good cause or reason for condonation of the inordinate delay of more than 125 days. Since, Learned CIT(A) neither discussed the grounds put forth by the assessee seeking condonation of delay nor recorded any reasons for rejecting the same, and also did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to requisition from the department or to bring on record material in support of the grounds put forth while seeking condonation of delay, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Result
9. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded above, in the interest of justice, we hereby allow the appeal for statistical purposes, set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). We have pondered over as to whether the matter be restored to the files of Learned CIT(A) or Learned Assessing Officer. As mentioned above, as per assessment order, notices under different provisions of the Act are stated to have been issued, by the department and the Assessing Officer, to the assessee before passing of Sh. Radheshyam Meena vs. ITO the assessment order, but the appellant has been denying service of any such notice or of the impugned assessment order by any mode of communication. As discussed above, Learned CIT(A) did not decide the factum of due service of notices said to have been issued before passing of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer. In this peculiar situation, when point of following principles of natural justice is involved, instead of restoring the matter to the files of Learned CIT(A), we restore the matter to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/05/2024.