RAJWANT KAUR,PEHOWA, KURUKSHETRA V. ITO, WARD 3, KURUKSHETRA

ITA 1023/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Rajwant Kaur against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was initially delayed by 408 days, attributed to the assessee's lack of awareness of the need to check or respond through the income-tax e-filing portal, as she only became aware of the demand upon receiving a physical notice. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be reasonable and bona fide, leading to the condonation of the delay. The main legal issues raised included the validity of reassessment due to non-service of notice under section 148, the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution without adjudication on merits, and the denial of the opportunity to furnish additional evidence under Rule 46A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits nor considered the request for additional evidence, leading to the decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792028 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SACHDEVA; C.A
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी क ृणवȶ सहाय, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1023/Chd/ 2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajwant Kaur W/o Shri Malak Singh, Vill: Malakpur, Tehsil Pehowa, Kurukshetra,Haryana-136128 बनाम The ITO Ward-3 Kurukshetra ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: HUBPK8077D अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, C.A राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 15/10/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश/Order PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM: This appeal by the assessee arises from the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 408 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. In the condonation petition, the assessee has explained that she is a farmer by occupation, residing in a rural area, and has very limited knowledge of income tax laws as well as online procedures. It has been stated that she was not aware of the requirement to check or respond through the income-tax e-filing portal and came to know about the demand only upon receipt of a physical notice from the Department. Thereafter, she immediately sought professional assistance. The delay, according to the assessee, is wholly unintentional and caused due to circumstances beyond her control. Printed from counselvise.com 2 3. Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the contents of the petition, we are satisfied that the reasons furnished constitute reasonable and bona-fide cause. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised several grounds challenging the validity of reassessment on account of non- service of notice under section 148, alleged non-speaking order on objections, incorrect appreciation of facts relating to transfer of ancestral agricultural land without consideration, and denial of opportunity for furnishing additional evidence under Rule 46A. 6. The impugned order reveals that although five notices were issued to the assessee on different dates, no effective submissions were received except a request for adjournment. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex- parte and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of non-prosecution. It is evident from the order that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds on merits, nor has there been any consideration of the assessee’s request seeking admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A. 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record. In the present case we find that the assessee, being an agriculturist from a rural background with limited awareness of online compliance procedures, has shown reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). The dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits has resulted in denial of proper opportunity to the assessee. It is well settled that the first appellate authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on each ground raised and, wherever applicable, must examine the admissibility of additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A. Since these requirements have not been fulfilled, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com 3 8. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide all issues afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also consider the assessee’s request for admission of additional evidence in accordance with law. The assessee, in turn, shall extend full cooperation and furnish all information and documents as may be required. We clarify that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 9. In the result, the delay is condoned and the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/12/2025 Sd/- Sd/- लिलत क ुमार क ृणवȶ सहाय (LALIET KUMAR) (KRINWANT SAHAY) Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "