AMAR SINGH VILLAGE DARBA KALAN, SIRSA HARYANA,SIRSA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA

ITA 46/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Amar Singh, against the order of the CIT(A), which dismissed his appeal on technical grounds due to a delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the assessee's illiteracy and lack of familiarity with digital communication, leading to an inactive email ID and unawareness of the reassessment proceedings until informed by his counsel. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need to hear the case on its merits rather than dismissing it on technicalities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712337 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash (2024), Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 46/Chd/ 2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Amar Singh Village Darba Kalan, Sirsa Haryana-125055 बनाम The ITO Ward-1, Sirsa Haryana ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BLAPS2430N अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29/07/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 27/11/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the basis of delay, for which, the reasons were given by the assessee's counsel at the time of filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and without giving any further opportunity, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on technical ground i.e. on account of delay in filing the appeal which is not proper. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee being illiterate not conversant with the email facility and, as such, he was handicapped in not filing the appeal within time Printed from counselvise.com 2 and rejection of valid reason for delay in filing the appeal is not correct by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. That the assessee has bonafide reason for delay and, as such, the assessee prays for setting the aside the case to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh after condoning the delay and to give the decision on merit as well. 4. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds on merits as taken before him. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Amar Singh, is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2013–14, the Ld. AO passed an ex-parte assessment order dated 19.03.2022 under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 86,80,160/-. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued through the Income Tax portal during the reassessment proceedings. The matter was further referred to the Verification Unit for physical service of notices; however, no response was received from the assessee. In view of the continued non-compliance and absence of any representation, the Ld. AO concluded that the assessee had failed to participate in the reassessment proceedings and, accordingly, proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte by invoking the best judgment provisions under the Act. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 21.11.2022 with a delay of 217 days. In the Printed from counselvise.com 3 application for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted that the delay was unintentional and occurred due to a lack of awareness about the assessment proceedings. It was explained that the email ID registered on the Income Tax portal was inactive, and owing to his illiteracy and lack of familiarity with digital systems, the assessee was not aware of the developments in the case. Upon consultation with his counsel, the assessee came to know of the assessment order and thereafter promptly filed the appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of delay, holding that the assessee had failed to establish “sufficient cause” as required under the law. In doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash (2024), wherein it was held that litigants must remain vigilant about their legal rights and cannot simply attribute delays to the conduct of their counsel. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the assessee did not take timely steps to update his contact information on the Income Tax portal, despite being aware that the registered email ID was inactive. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an illiterate individual with no familiarity or exposure to digital procedures or the functioning of the Income Tax portal. It was contended that the statutory notices were never served upon the assessee through physical means, and he remained Printed from counselvise.com 4 completely unaware of the reassessment proceedings until he was informed by his counsel on 18.11.2022. The Ld. AR emphasized that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but was caused due to bona fide reasons stemming from the assessee’s ignorance and lack of access to electronic communication. The Ld. AR pleaded that, in the interest of natural justice, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits after granting due opportunity to the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee that his illiteracy and lack of familiarity with digital procedures constitute a reasonable and bona fide explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. In our considered view, the principle of natural justice demands that an assessee should not be denied an opportunity to be heard on merits, especially when the delay is neither intentional nor due to gross negligence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], has held that a liberal approach must be adopted while considering condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal solely on technical grounds without Printed from counselvise.com 5 appreciating the genuine cause shown by the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide the assessee with reasonable opportunity to present his case, including furnishing necessary documents and explanations, and thereafter to frame a fresh assessment order in accordance with law after considering the submissions made by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/07/2025 Sd/- Sd/- लिलत क ुमार क ृणवȶ सहाय (LALIET KUMAR) (KRINWANT SAHAY) Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "