SHRI MUZAFER AHMAD RATHER ,ANANTNAG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

ITA 427/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Muzafar Ahmad Rather, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, which was based on the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi. The primary contention was the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard by the first appellate authority, and the absence of adjudication on the merits of the case. The assessee, engaged in civil construction, had his income assessed with an addition of Rs.22.96 lakhs due to non-submission of supporting documents for claimed expenditures. The Tribunal found that the notices were not properly served to the current counsel of the assessee, leading to non-representation in earlier proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need for proper notification and representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787517 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muzafar Ahmad Rather Rahu, Anantnag, H.O. Ananthnag 192101 Jammu & Kashmir [PAN: AIVPR 3072L] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Udhampur (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C. A. Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 15.10.2025 21.11.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 19.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2022. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is filed belatedly by 163 (One hundred sixty-three) days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating the fact that the first appellate order is dated 19.12.2023 and the second appeal should have been filed within 60 days i.e., 28th February, 2024. However, the said order has not been received in the e-mail id of the assessee and as per the details contained in the portal, it is seen that the notices and communications from the office of the ld. first appellate authority has been issued to the e-mail id [e-mail] who according to the assessee is the previous counsel of the assessee, who has never informed him about the existence of the appellate orders. Apart from the above, there are various other e-mail ids mentioned in the appellate order which does not belong to the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person residing in remote village having no knowledge of computer system and was totally unaware of faceless appellate proceedings and has come to know of the existence of the appellate order only on 4th July, 2024, and thereafter, he appointed a lawyer who has guided him to file this appeal before the Tribunal on 29th July, 2024 which is belated by 163 days. He prayed that since the delay was not intentional or willful on the part of the assessee, the delay in filing this appeal may please be condoned and the appeal may please be admitted to be heard on merits. Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 3. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we are of the opinion that there are no intentional neglect on the part of the assessee, and as such we condone the delay of 163 (one hundred sixty-three) days and admit the appeal to be taken up for hearing on merits. 4. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and the main objection is that no opportunity of hearing has been provided by the office of the ld. first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on the grounds contained in Form No. 35 on merits of the case. 5. Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee is in the business of civil construction including road work and has submitted his return disclosing a total income of Rs.80.29 lakhs which has been subsequently revised to Rs. 78.79 lakhs. In course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, notices issued from the office of the AO has not been complied in full and the assessee has not furnished any supporting documents to substantiate the return filed, and in absence of proper bills and vouchers and other documents, the assessment has been completed with an addition of Rs.22.96 lakhs on account of expenditures being disallowed on estimated basis @15% of the total claim. Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 6. The matter caried in appeal has also gone unrepresented and there has not been any submission or any response to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) on four different dates as apparent from the appellate order. 7. Before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the notice has not been issued to the e-mail id as updated in the portal, and the same has been served on the earlier counsel who has never intimated the assessee regarding the dates of hearing. As such, he humbly prayed that the assessee is in possession of all documentary evidences regarding expenditure that has been claimed in the return and disallowance of expenditure on estimated basis, is not justified and he is ready to produce all documentary evidences in support of his entire claim and has prayed for an opportunity of hearing before the ld. first appellate authority. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but has no objection if the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we have gone through the various screenshots of the portal filed before us and the main contention of the assessee is that the notice has not been issued to the e-mail id as updated in the portal and on account of non-receipt of the notice of hearing, no Printed from counselvise.com 5 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 representation could be made. However, we are not in agreement with the contention of the assessee because it is seen from Form No. 35, the e-mail id provided is [e-mail] (may be of previous counsel) and the ld. CIT(A) has correctly issued the notices in the said e-mail id as admitted by the assessee in his written submission (in page no. 32 of the paper book) where the assessee has admitted that notice has been issued to the said email id. As such, we observe that in the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly issued the notices in the e-mail id provide in Form No. 35 but due to non-cooperation on the part of the earlier counsel, no representation could be made. In the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) to allow the assessee one more opportunity to furnish necessary documents in support of his case and we direct the assessee to furnish all documentary evidences before the ld. first appellate authority and to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings. 10. The assessee should be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard and notices to be issued in the updated email id as available in the portal and also in the email id provided in Form No. 35. 11. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Printed from counselvise.com 6 I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 21.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order Printed from counselvise.com "