NAGEENA BI,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 1(1), , BHOPAL

PDF
ITA 405/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 March 2024AY 2007-08Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)4 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Divyanshu Porwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.03.2024Pronounced: 20.03.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 12.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.03.2015 passed by learned ITO- 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 read with section 143(3)/147 of Income-tax Act,

Page 1 of 4

Nageena Bi, Bhopal vs. ITO,1(1), Bhopal ITA No. 405/Ind/2023 - AY 2007-08 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed

this appeal.

2.

The registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 40

days and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the

assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an

affidavit on stamp. Ld. AR drew our attention to the condonation-

application/affidavit and submitted that the assessee is a housewife and she

is an illiterate lady; she is lacking knowledge of the provisions of law as well

technological systems. Ld. AR submitted that because of her illiteracy, the

assessee could not make any representation before lower-authorities which

has led to passing of ex-parte orders by both of the lower-authorities. Ld. AR

submitted that the delay of 40 days in filing appeal has occurred solely due

to illiteracy but otherwise there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence, mala

fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the

assessee does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He prayed

with utmost humbleness that looking to the position of assessee, the small

delay of 40 days be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the

wisdom of Bench while showing no objection. We have considered the

explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or

material on record, the assessee is found to have a sufficient cause for delay

in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the

ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a

sufficient cause for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a

Page 2 of 4

Nageena Bi, Bhopal vs. ITO,1(1), Bhopal ITA No. 405/Ind/2023 - AY 2007-08 settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition

Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever

substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other,

the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-

oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5)

and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view,

condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing.

3.

During hearing, learned Representatives of both sides are ad idem and

agree that for an apt and proper adjudication of the case of assessee, this

matter should go back to the file of AO. Ld. DR, however, requests that a

clear direction be given to assessee to represent her case adequately before

AO. In view of this and also having regard to the principle of natural justice

and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that

the assessee can represent her case before AO for a proper adjudication.

Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh

adjudication, without being influenced by previous orders, after giving

opportunities to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure

participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary

adjournments. We also make it clear that in case of non-co-operation by

assessee, the AO shall be free to pass an ex-parte order in accordance with

law.

Page 3 of 4

Nageena Bi, Bhopal vs. ITO,1(1), Bhopal ITA No. 405/Ind/2023 - AY 2007-08 4. Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 20.03.2024.

Sd/- sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक /Dated : 20.03.2024. CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 4 of 4

NAGEENA BI,BHOPAL vs ITO - 1(1), , BHOPAL | BharatTax