AKILA BEGUM, LUCKNOW. V. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bareilly New., Bareilly.

ITA 66/LKW/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Akila Begum, the appellant, contesting an appellate order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed significant additions to her income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary issues revolved around the non-consideration of the assessee's submissions and documents, and the dismissal of her appeal due to a procedural delay which was later explained as a result of technical difficulties in filing online. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the technical difficulties faced in filing the appeal and the insufficient time provided for compliance during the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123073 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SR4IVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.66/LKW/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Akila Begum 41, Gram Sagalpur Bhojipura Bareilly v. Income Tax Officer – 1(1) Bareilly TAN/PAN:AQBPB6558R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 24 05 2023 Date of pronouncement: 30 05 2023 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) Appeal in I.T.A. No.66/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 18.1.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048884505(1) of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ld. CIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.56,70,700/- without considering the submissions of the assessee hence the said addition is liable to be deleted. 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.52.39,800/- by Page 2 of 5 ignoring the documents (Khasra, Khatauni and report of Lekhpal) and without considering said documents and submissions of the assessee the Ld. CIT(Appeal) confirmed the addition which is purely illegal and liable to deleted. 3. BECAUSE, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the delay condonation application filed by assessee hence the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and quashed. 4. BECAUSE, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) decided the appeal of the assessee without affording due and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 was passed under section 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“I.T. Act” for short], wherein the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,11,47,590/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,37,090/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine under section 250 read with section 251of the I.T. Act, without considering the merits of the appeal filed. The ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 23 days in filing of the appeal and proceeded to dismiss the assessee’s appeal as barred by limitation. Aggrieved again, the assessee filed this present appeal against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 18.1.2023 of the ld. CIT(A). (B.1) At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to para 3 of the impugned order Page 3 of 5 dated 18.1.2023, wherein the assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal, on the following grounds: "The delay was of 23 no. of days. This was due to the fact that appeal is to be made online with OTP to be sent on the number linked to aadhar and due to technical difficulties of mismatch of PAN and aadhar data and the number linked to aadhar the appeal could not be made online." (B.1.1) The ld. Counsel for the assessee further explained that filing of the appeal in online manner in the office of the ld. CIT(A) required OTP to be sent on the Mobile number linked to the Aadhaar. However, the assessee faced technical difficulty in carrying this out, as the assessee’s application for updating/rectification of data in Aadhaar was pending with the UIDAI. To support this contention, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted the relevant evidence from the Aadhaar database before and after the aforesaid updation/rectification. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in view of this technical difficulty, the assessee was not able to file the appeal in online manner in the office of the ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit. He made a prayer to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in the office of the ld. CIT(A). (B.2) The learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue [“ld. Sr. D.R.” for short] expressed no objection to the aforesaid submissions/contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Page 4 of 5 (B.2.1) In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that, because of the technical difficulties faced by the assessee, there was reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal in the office of the ld. CIT(A). We further observe on perusal of records that the Assessing Officer passed ex parte assessment order (qua the assessee), as a result of which the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer did not have the benefit of representation by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. Although the assessee was issued notices of hearing during the assessment proceedings, we find that the last notice of hearing was issued on 19.12.2017, whereby the date of compliance was fixed for 26.12.2017, and that the notice was served on the assessee on 22.12.2017. We are of the view that the time available to the assessee for compliance between the aforesaid dates of 22.12.2017 and 26.12.2017 was not sufficient. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ld. Sr. D.R. for the Revenue expressed no objection to this submission made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In view of the foregoing, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case, and as the representatives of both the sides are in agreement on this, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 18.01.2023 of the ld. CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of Page 5 of 5 appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. (E) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/05/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:30/05/2023 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar