Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is a housewife who missed a hearing due to her lack of understanding of electronic processes and was unaware of the order until recovery proceedings began. The First Appellate Authority passed an ex-parte order, confirming an assessment order that added Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained cash. The assessee claimed to have been denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances and the lack of willful or wanton delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case, focusing only on the non-appearance. Ends of justice would be met by giving the assessee one last opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard and if the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
V.Jayanthi, Income Tax Officer, No.3226, South Raja Street, Ward-1 Pudukkottai-622001. Pudukkottai [PAN: AAHPJ0766B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Ashok Kumar, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Chinthapalli Meher Chand, JCIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060229339(1) dated 29.01.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017- 18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 29.01.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 147 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is a housewife having a rental and interest income and not much educated. It was contended that she is not conversant with electronic assessment and was not capable of checking her emails on regular basis. She learnt of the order only when the recovery proceedings were initiated. It was also submitted that the assesse has revised her email settings so that the emails are copied to her chartered accountant also. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not posed any serious objections. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 05.12.2019 and that the appeal was dismissed on account of non-appearance. As per the assessment order the assesse had deposited cash of Rs.12,04,000/- in her bank account. The Ld. AO noted the assesse was unable to offer satisfactory explanation and hence he proceeded to make addition of Rs 10,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s 69A. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded that the assesse has been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly prayed that matter may be considered for restoration to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse assured that full compliance would be made now. The Ld. DR proposed that cost may be levied upon the assesse. 4.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assesse, as to why it could not prosecute its case. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of non-appearance by the assesse the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched upon merits of the case. We are therefore of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assesse is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct him to readjudicate the matter. He is directed to give due opportunities of being heard to the assesse. The assesse is directed to make complete and correct compliance towards the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Any non-compliance from the assesse side shall be 5.0 In the result, the appeal raised by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes.