Poonam Rani Sharma, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-56(3), New Delhi

ITA 9805/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9770 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.9804 and 9805/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13) Smt. Poonam Rani Sharma H-57, Mansarovar Park Shahdara Delhi-110 034 PAN-AAEPS 6765J Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-56(3) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Maimum Alam, Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) These two appeals are disposed off through this common order for the sake of convenience. The assessee is an illiterate lady and a widow. The assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.1,32,26,590/- as against returned income of Rs.2,57,590/-. During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire dated 25/02/2015 was issued by the Assessing ITA No.9804 & 9805/Del/2019 Smt. Poonam Rani Sharma vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 Officer (‘AO’ for short) to the assessee, and the assessment order was passed shortly thereafter, on 30/03/2015. The AO has not indicated actual date of service of the notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act, plus, questionnaire. Having regard to the personal situation of the assessee (an illiterate lady, who is also a widow); and also, to short gap of time between likely date of service of notice u/s 142(1) questionnaire, and date of assessment order; it seems that reasonable opportunity was not available to the assessee, before the assessment was done by the AO by making an addition of Rs.1,29,69,000; thereby assessing the income of the assessee at more than 50 times the returned income. Separately, an order dated 28/09/2015 was also passed by the AO, imposing penalty amounting to Rs.40,28,306/- under s.271(1)(c) of IT Act. The assessee filed separate appeals against aforesaid orders dated 30/03/2015 and 28/09/2015, in the office of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld. CITA”, for short]. Vide two separate orders, each dated 22/10/2019, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals on the ground that the assessee did not ITA No.9804 & 9805/Del/2019 Smt. Poonam Rani Sharma vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 establish/substantiate sufficient cause for delay in filing of the two appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeals of the assessee; and did not decide the appeals of the assessee on merits. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present two appeals against aforesaid two separate impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A) each dated 22/10/2019. (B) At the time of the hearing before us, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, we heard Ms. Maimum Alam, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR” for short) who represented Revenue. The lady submitted graciously that in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals; Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to condone delay, if any, in filing of appeals in the office of Ld. CIT(A); and to admit the appeals; and further to pass de novo orders on merits of disputed addition/penalty, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of these submissions of Ld. Sr. DR and in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeals before us, we set aside both the aforesaid impugned appellate orders (each dated 22/10/2019) ITA No.9804 & 9805/Del/2019 Smt. Poonam Rani Sharma vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to condone delay, if any, in filing of appeals in the office of Ld. CIT(A), and to admit the appeals, and further, to pass de novo orders on merits of disputed addition/ penalty after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We have already remarked earlier in this order, that it seemed that reasonable opportunity was not available to the assessee before the assessment was done by the AO making an addition of Rs.1,29,69,000; thereby assessing the income of the assessee at more than 50 times the returned income. Accordingly, we furthermore direct the Ld. CIT(A) to give due consideration to Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules if the assessee files additional evidences. Both the appeals are disposed of in accordance with aforesaid directions. (F) In the result, for statistical purposes, the both appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 28/09/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/09/2022 ITA No.9804 & 9805/Del/2019 Smt. Poonam Rani Sharma vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW, DELHI