SANTRA,BHIWANI V. ITO, CHARKHI DADRI

ITA 4107/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Smt. Santra against the order of the CIT(A), which had dismissed her earlier appeal due to a significant delay attributed to her medical conditions. The original assessment by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) included additions to her income on account of unsecured loans and creditors verification, which she contested. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay in her appeal due to lack of corroborative evidence at that time. However, the ITAT found new medical evidence presented by the assessee's counsel sufficient to justify the delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471801 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREY JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4107/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2020-21 SMT. SANTRA, VS. ITO, NFAC, DELHI VISHWAKARMA COLONY, WARD NO. 3. CHARKHI DADRI CITY, BHIWANI, HARYANA-127306 (PAN: BOEPD5064C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shrey Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 14.6.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, passing the impugned order u/s 143(3) under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case as the date of issue of notice was 08.09.2022 and due date of filling was 13.09.2022, where as the 08.09.2022 was second Saturday 2 | P a g e and 09.09.2022 was Sunday, assessee left with only 10- 11-12, to reply as the portal was blocked / closed on 13.09.2022 to file reply. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the proper opportunity i.e. Principal of Natural Justice was not followed as the assessee demanded the Video Conferencing on 22.03.2022, which was not provided to the assessee at any time during the assessement proceedings, which is illegal, bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the appeal filled on medical grounds that ought to have considered and quashed the impugned assessment order passed by Ld. AO. 4. On facts, in the circumstances of the case and material available on record, while framing the assessment order Ld. A.O. has erred in not considering fact that appellant had made submission of unsecured loans confirmation and the time given for furnishing the reply was against the principle of natural justice for creditors confirmation. 5. The Ld. AO had not provided any draft order before passing of final order. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 1,08,92,428/- on account of alleged unsecured loans and creditors verification and impugned addition has been made by recording incorrect fats and findings and 3 | P a g e in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. That the appellant craves the lave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the reasonable cause has been attributed to the ailment of the assessee. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the records, we condone the delay in dispute. 3. In this case assessment was completed by the NFAC. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that there is a delay of 584 days in filing the appeal before him and the reasonable cause attributed to the ailment of the assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not convinced, he found that no corroborative evidence was produced before him, hence, he did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee could not produce the details about his ailment before the Ld. CIT(A). However, before us, he produced a Paper Book containing 106 pages, wherein various medical reports, ailments evidences of the assessee are attached and on the basis of these details of ailment of the assesssee, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that delay in dispute may be condoned before the Ld. CIT(A) and matter may be remanded back to the file of 4 | P a g e the CIT(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on merits, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. After carefully considered the above referred Paper Book submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee which contained the details of ailment evidences and medical reports etc. in respect of the assessee, we are of the considered view that delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be condoned, hence, we condone the same. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.02.2025. SD/- SD/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, "