SHEETAL KAUSHAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 5(2), BHOPAL

There is a delay of 93 days in filing the present appeal. The assesee has filed an application/affidavit explaining the cause of delay and seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I have heard the Learned AR as well as Learned DR and considered the reasons explained in the application for condonation of delay. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in filing the appeal as she has not received the impugned order of the CIT(A) which was available only on the e-portal of the Department and the assessee was not aware about the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). She has stated in the affidavit that the assessee did not received the impugned order through post and therefore, she was not aware Assessment Year. 2011-12 Smt. Sheetal Kaushal about the impugned order till a call was received from the Income Tax Office. Thus, the assessee has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons which were beyond the control of the assessee as the assessee was not served with the impugned order through post and immediately after knowing the fact that the order is available on e-portal of the Department, she took immediate steps for filing the present appeal. The Learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the assessee was negligent about filing of the present appeal within the period of limitation and cannot take an excuse of not knowing the availability of the order on e-portal of the Department.

Having considered the reasons explained by the assessee as well as submissions of the Ld. DR, I find that when the impugned order was not served on the assessee either by postal mode or by e- mail then the reasons explained by the assessee constitute a reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 93 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the learned lower authorities are vitiated on several grounds hence the same may kindly be quashed.

3. That the order of the learned lower authorities passed are unlawful and illegal. 2 Assessment Year. 2011-12 Smt. Sheetal Kaushal 4. That the learned lower authorities were not justified in not allowing proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard. Also the Learned ClT (Appeals) National Faceless E-Appeal Centre, was also not justified in not allowing any opportunity of personal hearing through digital media before confirming the disallowance.

That the various findings of the learned lower authorities are opposed to the facts hence the same may kindly be quashed.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned lower authorities erred and were not justified in making addition of Rs.35.20,000/- on account of unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act.

That the above grounds are independent to each other.”

The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessment order was passed by the AO under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act as the assessee could not appear before the AO for want of service of notices. The AO has made the addition on account of unexplained investment in the property of Rs. 35,20,000/- while passing the ex-parte order which was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A) but due to non-receipt of notice from the CIT(A), the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A), as the notices were issued online on the e-portal or on the e-mail which were not come to the notice of the assessee as she was not aware about the mode of service of notices. He has further submitted that the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without deciding the same on merits. Hence, the Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) may be set aside Assessment Year. 2011-12 Smt. Sheetal Kaushal and the matter may be remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has opposed the contention of the assessee and submitted that the assessee was negligent in appearing before the AO as well as before the CIT(A) therefore, the assessee does not deserve any further opportunity.