HARJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. W III(1), JCIT-III LDH, LUDHIANA

Against the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, notices were issued and thereafter, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution.

Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant is a farmer and not an educated person. He is not at all well versed with computer work and he doesn’t have access to any computer system. The department may have sent the notices electronically but in person notices were not received by the assessee. It was submitted that due to non-receipt of notice from department and due to lack of knowledge/understanding, he couldn’t appear in assessment proceedings and had not made any submission before the ITO ward 3(l).

1 It was further submitted that the assessee received a call from the concern range of ITO ward 3(1) regarding the deposit of outstanding tax as per the order u/s 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and got to know that the Income Tax department had also send a notice of demand along with assessment order to his residential address through speed post. Then assessee had approached some person to provide a solution in this matter of outstanding demand and had filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee was not aware about the submission of documents before the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi on 07/01/2020 and after that, the world suffered the crisis of COVID-19 and there was total lockdown in the country.

2 It was further submitted that the ld CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi had started issuing notice on portal from 19.06.2023 for the submission of reply through portal which were not received by the assessee through any speed post or registered post. The assessee is a farmer and not an educated person that he can check the income tax portal on regular basis. Further the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi had issued the notice on portal for the submission of reply on 27.06.2023, 12.07.2023, 20.07.2023 and 27.07.2023 one after the another and which were again not received by the assessee. It was submitted that thereafter, the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi had issued the impugned order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on ex-parte basis by confirming the action of Ld. AO ITO ward 3(1), Ludhiana.

3 It was submitted that there is no malafide or deliberate inaction on the part of the assessee and the latter is not going to gain anything from not attending to the proceedings. To meet the end of justice and to avoid the harassment of a bonafide assessee, it was submitted that the assessee be provided an opportunity to represent his case on merits and the matter may accordingly be set-aside to the file of the ld AO.

In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. At the same, the Sr. Dr didn’t object where the matter is set-aside to decide on merits of the case.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that due to non-receipt of notices, the assessee was prevented from attending to the assessment and appellate proceedings and therefore, deserve an opportunity to represent his case on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter is restored to the file of AO to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall participate in the proceedings and submit necessary information/documentation as so advised/as called for by the AO.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File