VANDANA SONI,MANASA V. ITO, NEEMUCH

ITA 437/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vandana Soni, the appellant, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Neemuch, and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. The appeal was initially found to be time-barred; however, the appellant provided a condonation application explaining the delay was due to non-receipt of notices and orders, which were sent to an inactive email address. The ITAT accepted the explanation, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations, and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for proper notice and opportunity for the appellant to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652607 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEE; FORREVENUELEFTTHEMATTERTOTHEWISDOMOFBENCHWITHOUTRAISINGANY; SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRISOUMYABUMB
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 4 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.437/Ind/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 Vandana Soni, Sadar Bazar, Manasa Manasa बनाम/ Vs. ITO, Neemuch (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: BIKPS3163H Assessee by Shri Soumya Bumb, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.06.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 29.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned ITO, Neemuch [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Vandana Soni ITA No. 4337/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 Page 2 of 4 2. The registry has informed that the present appeal is filed on 09.05.2024 against impugned order dated 29.04.2023 which is after statutory time period and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed a condonation-application supported by an affidavit. Referring to same, Ld. AR explained that in Column No. 17 of Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A), the assessee provided e-mail id [e-mail] against the information required “Address to which notices may be sent to the appellant”. However, the CIT(A) has sent notices of hearing to [e-mail] existing in the database of department (according to Ld. AR, the same email id is also auto-populated in the beginning part of Form No. 35). Ld. AR filed a copy of notice of hearing dated 21.04.2023 to show that the CIT(A) has sent notice to email id [e-mail] which was of previous consultant and not in active use. He submitted that the CIT(A) has delivered notices to this email id and so is the case of delivery of impugned order and there was no physical service. This has led to passing of impugned order ex-parte to assessee as well as non-filing of present appeal in time. It is only when the assessee logged in Income-tax Portal on 1st May, 2024 in the process of filing return for AY 2024-25 that the impugned order having been passed by CIT(A) came to the knowledge of assessee. Immediately, the assessee filed present appeal on 09.05.2024 without further delay. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee does not stand to derive any Vandana Soni ITA No. 4337/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 Page 3 of 4 benefit because of delay. He further submitted that the sole reason of delay is as explained in the condonation-application. He submitted that there is “sufficient cause” for delay and hence the delay should be condoned. Ld. DR for Revenue left the matter to the wisdom of Bench without raising any objection. We have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a “sufficient cause” for delay in filing present appeal. We find that section 253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of prescribed time, if there is a “sufficient cause” for not presenting appeal within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed with hearing. 3. Thereafter, Ld. Representatives of both sides agree that both of the orders passed by lower authorities viz. AO and CIT(A), are ex-parte due to non-prosecution and hence the present matter is fit for restoring to the file of AO for a proper adjudication. In view of agreement of both sides and having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is Vandana Soni ITA No. 4337/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18 Page 4 of 4 restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 4. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 17/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 17/06/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "