AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.11 .2025, passed by C IT(A)/NFAC u/s 250 of the Income T ax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2017-18.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1 . That t he NFAC grossly erred i n la w and on the facts and circumstance s of t he case i n dismissing t he appeal of the Appel lant mer ely on t he gr ound of delay and in violati on of pri nci ples o f natur al justice a nd t hat the applicatio n for condonation of delay could not be filed before t he NFA C due to i nadve rtent mi stake of the counsel.
2.That t he NFAC grossly erred i n la w and on the facts and circumstance s of t he case i n dismissing t he appeal of t he Appellant by confirming the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the r espo ndent wit hout consideri ng that the sa me was without j urisdictio n and thus voi d ab ini tio.
3.That t he NFAC grossly erred i n la w and on the facts and circumstance s of t he case i n dismissing t he appeal of t he Appellant by confirming the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the r espo ndent wit hout consideri ng that the additi ons of Rs. 70,40,000/- t o the income of the Appella nt was made wit hout considering the material on record and in denial of the pri nciples of nat ural justic e.
4.That t he NFAC grossly erred i n la w and on the facts and circumstance s of t he case i n dismissing t he appeal of t he Appellant by confirming the order dated 10.02.2025 without consideri ng t hat the respo ndent err ed i n maki ng an addition of Rs . 68,63,000/- to the income of the A ppellant und er secti on 69A of the Act .
5 That the NFAC on facts and in law erred i n not del eti ng t he i nterest levied by the r espondent under section 234A and 234B of the Act and i n no t del eti ng the penalty levied by the respondent under s ecti on 2 71 AAC(1 ), 270A, 272A(1)(d) a nd 27IF of the Act .”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an illiterate farmer and no r eturn of income was filed for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on infor mation availab le with the I.T . department regarding deposits amounting to Rs.73,05,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account, a notice u/s 148 w as issued on 23.03.2024. As no reply was filed by the assessee in response to multiple no tices issued by the AO, the assessme nt was completed ex-parte vide order u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 10.02.2 025 at assesse d income of Rs.70,40,000/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) issued notices for hearing. He further noted that the appeal was filed belatedly and no applicatio n for condonation of delay had been filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine vide order dated 06.1.2025.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, ld . AR has explained that the assessment order being ex-parte, was not in the knowledge of the assessee who was e ntire ly dependent o n his authorized representative for making compliance before the I.T. authorities. An affidav it of the assessee has been filed stating that he being an agriculturist and illiterate was not aw are of income tax procedures and came to know about the assessment order only on receiving penalty notices. Thereafter he appointed a counsel for filing of appeal before ld. CIT(A). However, inadvertently, no application for condo nation of delay of 5 months was filed before ld. CIT(A) and hence the appeal was dismissed in limine under these facts and circumstances. Ld. AR has requested that the matter may be restored to the ld. AO so that requisite evidences regarding source of cash deposits can be filed .
On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has been non-compliant before the AO and the ld. C IT(A) despite several notices issued to him and, therefore, the appeal was r ightly dismissed by the ld. C IT(A) for want of any application regarding condonation of delay of nearby 5 months.
We have heard the r ival submissio ns and perused the material on record. It is no ted that the assessee is an agriculturist who cannot even write his name and has no knowledge about income tax procedures. He was, therefore, complete ly dependent on his counsel to file the appeal. An affidavit on behalf of the counsel Sh. Ashok Sethi has also been filed wherein he has explained that he inadvertently did no t file the application for condonatio n under the bonafide belie f that there was no delay as t he assessme nt order though dated 10.02.2025 was downloaded in August 2025 only. Further, the notices issued by ld. CIT(A) were duly responded but there was no notice regarding defect in the appeal for want of application for condonatio n. In view of the above facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliances before the AO.
In the result, appeal of the asse ssee is allo wed for statistical purposes.