Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 26th September 2022 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.207-08.
There is a delay of 417 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an old lady of 83 years
ITANo.35/Ind/2024 Dr. Nirmala Rai of age and a retired professor from department of Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He has pointed out that the assessee has served more than 40 years in various colleges and her husband is also retired professor. He has further submitted that the assessee is suffering from various ailments and undergone treatment of serious illness. He has referred to the medical report of the assessee and submitted that during the year 2021 the assesse was hospitalized for more than a month and undergone major surgery on 07.07.2021. Due to ill-health the assessee was completely confined to bed till date and has not moved out of the house except for going for treatment in hospital. The assessee was completely depending upon the tax consultant who was looking after the tax matters. The notice as well as impugned order was send by the CIT(A) to the E-mail ID of the Tax Consultant however, the assessee was not aware about the status of the appeal pending before the CIT(A) as she was not given the information by the Tax Consultant. Ld. AR has submitted that due to ill-health the assesse was not in a position to get the information of the appeal pending before the CIT(A) and till the department initiated the recovery proceedings the assesse was not aware about the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal is neither willful nor deliberately but due to circumstances which were beyond the control of the assessee as well as on account of poor health of the assessee and lack of proper advice form the counsel the therefore, the appeal could not be filed
ITANo.35/Ind/2024 Dr. Nirmala Rai within the period of limitation. He has thus pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly submitted that in view of the old age as well as the health problem of the assessee for long time he does not object to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Having considered the rival submissions and the reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay as well as in the supporting affidavit we find that the assessee is a retired Government Servant of 83 years old and suffering from various ailments. The assessee has undergone the surgery during the month of July 2021 and thereafter stated to be confined to bed. It is also matter of record that the notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the E-mail ID given in form 35 and none of the e-mail ID belongs to the assessee in person. Thus, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within a period of limitation. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice we condoned the delay of 417 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1- That the AIR inquiry made is not lawful & not supported by the enacted law of income tax, rules, the re- assessment proceedings are vitiated in law.
ITANo.35/Ind/2024 Dr. Nirmala Rai 2- That no procedure followed as prescribed by the income tax law, act-rules. No reason were found recorded before issue of notice u/s 148. That investment by the cheque of the bank branch were there as Evidence. These payments received by the companies should have been verified before making the assessment.
3- That whole proceedings right form of verification letter after 8 year of the transaction is clearly time bared.
4- That the assessment made is time bared, the ITO has erred in crossing jurisdiction.
5- That the appellant crave to add alter or delete any ground before or during the hearing of appeal.”
At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that due to ill health and undergoing treatment, the assessee could not personally look after the matter before the CIT(A) and was completely depending upon the tax consultant/adviser. However, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte due to no response to the notices issued by it. Ld. AR has submitted that the addition has been made by the AO on account of investment made by the assessee in mutual funds as unexplained investment whereas the source of the said investment was encashment of the fixed deposits made by the assessee from her savings/retirement funds. Ld. AR has thus submitted that the bank statement itself shows that investment in mutual funds is from the encashment of fixed
ITANo.35/Ind/2024 Dr. Nirmala Rai deposits of Rs.9 lacs. However due to the adverse circumstances and ill-health the assessee could not submit relevant evidences before the authorities below. Hence, Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order of CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering relevant evidences to explain the source of investment of Rs.8 lacs made in the mutual funds.
On the other hand Ld. DR has not seriously objected if the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after verification and consideration of the relevant evidence explaining the source of investment.
We have considered the rival submission as well as careful perused the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee when there was no response to the notices issued to the assessee at e-mail ID given in form no.35. Having regard to the fact that the assessee as well as her husband are both retired professor and claiming sources of investment as encashment of the fixed deposits we are of the considered view that the matter requires a fresh adjudication at the level of the AO after proper verification and examination of the relevant evidences to explain source of investment made in the mutual funds. Accordingly in the interest of justice the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after proper verification and examination of the ITANo.35/Ind/2024 Dr. Nirmala Rai relevant evidences to be produced by the assessee to explain the source of investment for mutual funds.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2024.