Surender Singh vs Income Tax Officer

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 25.03.2025 arising out of penalty order dated 19.03.2024 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Registry has identified a delay of 252 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that after passing of the assessment order, the appellant had engaged a relative to represent him before the CIT(A). The said relative was not a tax practitioner and had limited knowledge of income-tax law. The appellant was under bona fide belief that his appeal was being properly pursued. The appellant subsequently came to know about the dismissal and the legal consequences thereof only at a later stage, whereafter he immediately consulted a competent tax professional and took steps to file the present appeal. However, the appellant was not made aware of the legal implications and limitation period for further appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Therefore, the delay is purely unintentional, bona fide, and due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The Ld. DR did not object to the condonation of delay. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the ld. AO has passed an ex-parte order. The appellant assessee was prevented by sufficient causes for non-submission of requisite details to the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order dated 19.03.2024 passed under section u/s u/s 143(1) of the Act and the appeal is dismissed. The order of ld. First Appellate Authority was also passed ex-parte on account of deficient non-compliance by the appellant. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication. It was submitted that the appellant assessee is a retired defense personal who had received pensionary benefits upon his retirement. The ld. Counsel personally ensured that the statutory notices would now be fully complied and there will no case for any non-compliance.

The Ld. DR while relying upon the order of the lower authorities did not tender any serious objection to the proposal.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We have noted that the order of Ld. Assessing Officer is indeed based upon non- compliance by the assessee to the show-cause notices. We have also noted that both the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) have drawn their conclusions in view of reported deficient compliance by the assessee. We are however conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We are also satisfied with the justification tendered by the appellant for its past non-compliance. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possesses the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.