LATA SHARMA, JAIPUR V. ITO, Ward-1(3)(), Kanpur.

ITA 56/LKW/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Lata Sharma, the appellant, who contested an addition of Rs.11,90,000 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) in an ex-parte order. The addition was made under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to alleged unexplained cash deposits. The appellant argued that she did not receive proper notice of the hearing from the CIT(A) due to an error in the email address used by the CIT(A), which led to her inability to contest the addition during the appellate proceedings. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the procedural lapses and the inadequacy of the compliance period provided by the Assessing Officer, considering the geographical distance and the remote location of the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113266 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SENDING FORM; REQUISITE ENCLOSURES THROUGH POST. TAKING
• Section: 144; 250; 69A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.56/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.56/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lata Sharma, C/o CA R. S. Poonia, D-82-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar PAN:FLXPS6413J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.56/Lkw/2023 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 06/12/2022 vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047837789(1) of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [learned “CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE amounting to Rs.11,90,000/- to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition. Appellant by None (written submissions) Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Date of hearing 12/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 17/10/2023 I.T.A. No.56/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2017-18 2 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in not telescoping of returned income. Kindly quash the same. 3. That the appellant did not receive the hearing notice u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued by Ld. CIT (Appeals) to our e-mail id and passed an exparte order which is against the principle of natural justice and spirit of law.” (A.1) In this case assessment order dated 25/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) wherein assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.11,90,000/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, which was passed ex-parte qua the assessee, an addition of Rs.11,90,000/- was made u/s 69A of the IT Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 06/12/2022, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The aforesaid impugned appellate order was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. The present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short) was filed online as well as through physical mode. The physical filing of the present appeal was done by the assessee by sending Form-36 and requisite enclosures through post. Taking the date of receipt of Form-36 through post into consideration, Registry of ITAT has noted that the appeal is time barred by six days. In response to the aforesaid defect communicated by Registry, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. In this application, the assessee has submitted that payment of appeal fees as well as filing of appeal through online mode was done well within the prescribed period; and the delay in filing of appeal in physical mode was attributable to postal delay as the assessee resided in a remote place of Rajasthan in Jhunjhunu. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. I.T.A. No.56/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2017-18 3 In view of the foregoing no adverse view is being taken on the ground of limitation and this appeal is being hereby admitted for decision on merits. (B) On merits, a written submission has been received from the assessee’s side wherein it has been submitted that the notices of hearing were being issued by the learned CIT(A) on wrong e-mail ID. It has been submitted that the correct e-mail ID was [e-mail] as stated in Form-35 filed in the office of the learned CIT(A). However, the notices of hearing were being sent by the learned CIT(A) at e-mail ID of [e-mail] which was the e-mail ID of the assessee’s earlier tax consultant, who is no longer associated with the assessee. Thus, the assessee did not receive notices of hearing issued by the learned CIT(A) and as a result could not make compliances during the appellate proceedings in the office of learned CIT(A). (B.1) On perusal of the assessment order, it is found that show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on 05/11/2019 proposing to pass best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the IT Act and compliance date was fixed on 13/11/2019. On 13/11/2019 the assessee made partial compliance but in view of the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not file cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer did not provide any further opportunity to the assessee and proceeded to pass ex-parte order u/s 144 of the IT Act. There were only seven days between issue of show cause notice (05/11/2019) and compliance date (13/11/2019) which in our view, was inadequate having regard to facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard, we are taking due consideration of the fact that the lady assessee lives in a remote place in Rajasthan (in Jhunjhunu) whereas the Assessing Officer is based at Kanpur; I.T.A. No.56/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2017-18 4 and the distance posed difficulties in making full compliance within time prescribed by the Assessing Officer. (B.2.1) In the written submissions filed from the assessee’s side, it has been requested to remand back the case to the Assessing Officer as the assessment order was an ex-parte order and the assessee did not receive notices of hearing of learned CIT(A) during appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A). The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to this request made from the assessee’s side. (C) In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order dated 06/12/2022 of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute regarding addition of Rs.11,90,000/- is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 17/10/2023) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:17/10/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar