PRITAM SINGH,BHADSON V. ITO WARD NABHA, NABHA

ITA 774/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Pritam Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which was dated 17/10/2023 and pertained to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The primary contention of the appellant was the ex parte nature of the decision made by the CIT(A), as the notices were sent via email which the assessee could not access or understand, leading to non-representation in the initial hearings. The appellant also challenged the jurisdiction under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act and the merits of the additions made to his income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the case in his decision and thus remanded the case back for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126119 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH CAJLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority
• Section: 148; 64

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM ITA No. 774/Chd/2024 Assessment Year :2012-13 Pritam Singh Village Shamashpur Bhadson, Punjab-147201 Vs. The ITO Ward, Nabha PAN NO: ABMPS9822P Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 31/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 17/10/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in deciding the case exparte as the notices did not come into the knowledge of the assessee which was sent on email and no other mode of service was pressed. 2 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is erred in deciding the matter exparte merely on account of non- prosecution without going into the merits of the case. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is erred in law and on facts in upholding the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld. A.O. u/s 147/148 of the Act. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in confirming the re-opening the assessment, wherein the approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 was accorded by the competent authority in a very casual and mechanical manner. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in upholding the addition aggregating to Rs.5710533/- without considering the explanation furnished by the assessee. 7. That the assessee craves, leave, to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal before it is finally heard. 3. At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that the assessee's appeal is barred by limitation by 210 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay. The contents of the affidavit are as follows: I, Pritam Singh, aged 64 years son of Sh. Inder Singh resident of Village SamashpurBhadson, Nabha, District Patiala, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: - 1. That I am an illiterate person and unable to read, write and any language or to operate any electronic gazettes and signed this affidavit in Punjabi Language, which I have learnt by lot of practice. 2. That an assessment for the year 2012-13 was framed by the ITO, Nabha on 29.12.2019, wherein additional demand of Rs.3247260/-was raised. 3. That I was not aware of the procedure and proceedings of income tax and was totally dependent upon the professional engaged for the assessment purposes. Even as on date the email address is mentioned on my Income Tax Portal as [e-mail]. I am not aware how to operate whatsapp and email etc. 3 4. That after the assessment the professional was changed and another one was engaged for appeal purposes, but I learnt even on the appeal form the email of any other professional was appearing. 5. That as I learnt the notices for hearing of appeal were delivered on the portal and my previous counsel did not inform me about any of the notices issued for hearing of appeal. 6. That since there was no communication to me about the fixation of the case from any source consequently I could not represent my case before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which ultimately led to an exparte assessment. The appellate order came into my notice only when the income tax people served the notice personally for imposition of the penalty on 09.06.2024. The order was passed on 26.09.2023 and it came to the notice only on 09.06.2024. Consequently, the filing of appeal got delayed, which may kindly be condoned. 7. That non-representation of the case before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was inadvertent and sheer ignorance and non intimation to the deponent. 8. That it is prayed the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned 4. Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the Affidavit, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. The Ld. DR did not object if the delay is condoned. 6. At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order. The assessee could not comply with the notices issued by him with simple reason that all the notices were issued on IT Portal and email id which the assessee could not see. Accordingly he requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record, including the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the 4 appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued through the IT Portal and the registered email ID. However, he has not provided any findings on the merits of the case, which is essentialeven in an ex parte order. Therefore, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (KRINWANT SAHAY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. Guard File By order, Assistant Registrar "