FATESINGBHAI CHIMANBHAI VASAVA,BHARUCH GUJARAT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

ITA 273/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Fatesinghbhai Chimanbhai Vasava, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2012-13. Both appeals were initially dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with procedural notices. The assessee, represented by a new advocate, argued that the delays were unintentional and due to the remote location and lack of education of the assessee, compounded by the failure of his tax consultant to inform him of the proceedings. The ITAT found sufficient cause to condone the delays and restored the cases for re-evaluation on their merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470569 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: KRUTARTH DESAI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 273 & 310/SRT/2024 for AYs: 2017-18 & 2012-13 (Physical hearing) Fatesinghbhai Chimanbhai Vasava, 47, Talav Faliyu, Dharoli Jhagadia, Bharuch – 393110, Gujarat E-mail: [e-mail] Mob - 9429550520 PAN : AJVPV0096M Vs The ITO, Ward – 1(1), Bharuch APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate with Ms. Disha Kharod, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Institution 11/03/2024 Date of hearing 10/10/2024 Date of pronouncement 28/10/2024 Order under Section 254(1) of Income tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short CIT(A) or NFAC’), Delhi, dated 31.08.2022 and 29.11.2023 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-17 and 2012-13. Both the appeals were dismissed by ld CIT(A) in ex-parte order. Perusal of records shows that appeal in AY.2012-13 is filed after 54 days of period of limitation and appeal in AY.2017-18 after 498 days of period of limitation. The assessee has filed condonation of delay in both the appeals. There is long delay in appeal for AY.2017-18, hence, appeal for this year is treated as lead case. ITA Nos.273 & 310/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 & 2012-13 Fatesinghbhai Chimanbhai Vasava 2 2. Rival submissions of learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue is heard on the plea of condonation of delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that order for AY.2017-18 was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 31.08.2021, the assessee was required to file appeal on or before 30.10.2022. The ld. AR submits that assessee is an individual and resides in a remote area. The assessee is not much educated and not well-versed with electronic gadgets. For filing appeal before ld CIT(A), the assessee appointed tax consultant. The tax consultant while filing appeal on the portal of income tax business application (ITBA) furnished his own two e- mail i.e. [e-mail] and [e-mail]. The notice if any may have sent on such e-mail id. No notice if any was served upon the said consultant, was not informed to the assessee nor any compliance was made by his consultant. The assessee was under bonafide impression that his consultant may be taken care of his appellate proceeding. The assessee came to know about the dismissal of appeal only in last week of January 2024, when notice of penalty under section 271AAC was served upon the assessee. The assessee immediately approached the present AR for taking recourse of law. The present AR immediately on taking instruction, filed appeal before Tribunal. The assessee came to know about the dismissal of appeal only service of notice under section 271AAC of the Act. The ld. AR submits that from the date of knowledge of dismissal, the assessee filed appeal within time. However, for safer side, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. The ld. AR for assessee submits ITA Nos.273 & 310/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 & 2012-13 Fatesinghbhai Chimanbhai Vasava 3 that there is no willful or deliberate delay in filing appeal, rather for the circumstances explained hereinabove. The assessee has shown reasonable and sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeal. The assessee has good case on merit and likely to succeed, if one more opportunity is given to him to contest the case on merit. The ld AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future for making compliance of notices of ld CIT(A). 3. Against the delay in appeal for AY.2012-13, the ld. AR submits that in the said appeal that there is delay in 54 days, the assessee came to know about the dismissal of said appeal when he enquired about the status of appeal for AY.2017-18 and both the appeals were filed simultaneously. The ld. AR submits that bench taken lenient view that delay may be condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee is not shown reasonable and plausible explanation for condonation of delay. The assessee is pleading self-serving story without supporting any evidence. The ld. Sr. DR submits that in case delay is condoned, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. 5. We have considered rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that in AY.2017- 18, the assessee filed first appeal before CIT(A) on 29.01.2020. The ld. CIT(A) issued various notices in the month of January, 2021 to July, 2022. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that the ITA Nos.273 & 310/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 & 2012-13 Fatesinghbhai Chimanbhai Vasava 4 assessee has not made any compliance on such notices. Thereby the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer (AO) in making addition on account of cash and other credit in various bank accounts. During assessment, the AO added Rs.19,73,500/- by taking view that no details were furnished to substantiate such cash deposit. We find that though the assessee contested the assessment order by filing reply before AO. Thus, it is not the case of revenue that the assessee is habitual defaulter in making compliance. Now adverting to the plea of condonation of delay pleaded by assessee. We find that main contention of ld AR of the assessee is that assessee was not aware about the dismissal of the appeal and that he was not informed by his consultant about the notice is any served. The assessee has filed his affidavit to support his contention. Thus, considering over facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has shown reasonable cause in not filing appeal within time. Hence, delay in filing of appeal is condone. 6. On merit, we find that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO in ex parte proceeding, therefore, in our considered view, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to context the case on merit. Thus, the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) has given reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in making such compliance during appellate proceedings. ITA Nos.273 & 310/SRT/2024/AY.2017-18 & 2012-13 Fatesinghbhai Chimanbhai Vasava 5 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.273/SRT/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 310/Srt/2024 for AY 2012-13 8. Considering the facts on similar plea on condonation of delay, we have already condoned the delay in appeal for AY.2017-18 in filing the appeal. For this assessment year, the delay of appeal of 54 days, hence, following the consistency, the delay in filing this appeal for this year also allowed with similar observation. Further, considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) have passed the order in ex parte, thus, the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh of giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee as directed above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.310/SRT/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28/10/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 28/10/2024 SAMANTA Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS, ITAT, Surat "