ANURAG, KARNAL V. ITO WARD 1 , KARNAL

ITA 298/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4524 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.298/Del./2022 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) Shri Anurag, vs. ITO, Ward 1, 477, Nirmal Vihar, Bank Side, Karnla. Sector 7, Karnal – 132 001 (Haryana). (PAN : AQTPA2563R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date of Order : 18.04.2022 O R D E R The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2011-12 vide order dated 17.12.2021. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under :- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without considering the fact the assessee is an illiterate agriculturist and has no knowledge of law. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in confirming the action of the Ld. AO without admitting the additional evidences filled by the assessee before the Ld CIT(A). 3. That the Ld. CIT has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of Ld AO without appreciating the cash flow statement of the assessee and affidavit filed by the assessee and his father for various transactions.” 2 ITA No.298/Del./2022 3. From the perusal of the appellate order, it is seen that NFAC passed an ex-parte order and has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal was delayed by 175 days. From the perusal of the order, it is seen that the assessee has stated as under :- “No notice was served on assessee. Assessment was done without giving opportunity of hearing u/s 144/147. However assessee had received penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and 271F for the AY 2011-12 as on18.06.2019. Then assessee came to know about the said assessment order ie passed u/s 144/147. Hence, there should have natural justice of hearing opportunity but not given. Assessment order is done u/s 144/147. Now assessee is seeking condonation for delay filing on the above said reason due to non receipt of order done u/s 144/147 and non receipt of any notice on account of assessment proceeding for the AY 2011-12. Further assessee had taken assessment order copy from the income tax office ward no 1 for filing appeal in this respect as AO even had not served assessment order and demand notice to the assessee. Further we are enclosing non serving proof of assessment order, demand notice and notices. Now assessee is seeking condonation for delay in filing appeal due to above said valid reason." 4. Once the assessee has submitted that it has not received the assessment order and without giving any opportunity to the assessee, the ld. NFAC has passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hold that the matter should be restored back to first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced on 18 TH day of April, 2022. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.04.2022 TS 3 ITA No.298/Del./2022 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.