PRITAM SINGH,NABHA V. ITO WARD NABHA, NABHA

ITA 773/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Pritam Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2011-12. The primary grievances included the issuance of notices via email which the assessee could not access, leading to an ex parte order, and the improper assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also contested various additions made to his income, including an advance against an agreement to sell and deposits from the sale proceeds of agricultural land. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and remanded it for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126118 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• 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
• Section: 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. 773/Chd/2024 Assessment Year :2011-12 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. 26/09/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 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 2. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in issuing the notices for hearing on email, which was specifically prohibited in form no.35 and ultimately lead to exparte order. 3. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is erred in non-service of notices to the address mentioned in form no.35. 3. (a) The additional ground that on facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Act when reasons recorded in the present case as evident from cursory look to the same are based on vague grounds and mere suspensions as well as wrong assumptions of facts. (b) That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law Ld. A.O. erred in assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of invalid and mechanical approval as evident from cursory look to reasons format as mere endorsement of the action of Ld. A.O. without application of mind is made ergo re-opening proceedings, resultant assessment order u/s 147/143 (3) may please be quashed as void abinitio, 4 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. 5 That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in makingan addition of Rs 29,00,000/- received as an advance against the agreement to sell, which was forfeited by the assessee 6 That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 10178922/- deposited in bank out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land owned by his wife without considering the facts of the case. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is erred in making the addition of cash deposits without considering the withdrawal, which was re-deposited. 6 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 231 days. In this regard, the 3 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 Samashpur Bhadson, 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 29.12.2018, wherein additional demand of Rs.13147526/- 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. 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. 4 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 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 5 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 "