Sushma Shrestha vs DCIT

A. That the Impugned Order, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and untenable in law.

B. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in passing the Impugned Order without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The Appellant, being an elderly lady and a foreign national not residing in India, did not regularly access the income-tax portal on which the notices were uploaded. Further, the notices were also sent by e-mail to the Appellant's erstwhile representatives at [email protected] and were never brought to the Appellant's knowledge, thereby resulting in a complete denial of an effective opportunity to respond. Additionally, no physical notice was served at the Appellant's local address. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by depriving the Appellant of the opportunity to rebut the Respondent's unsubstantiated allegations and by mechanically reiterating the Assessment Order without independent application of mind. The Impugned Order, being contrary to the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem, is therefore liable to be set aside.

C. That the Impugned Order has been passed in contravention of the legal mandate requiring physical hearing in the present matter. It is submitted that the concerned CIT(A), being part of the Central Charge, was statutorily required to conduct the proceedings through physical mode in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act and CBDT notifications. The failure to adhere to this procedural requirement has resulted in a denial of effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant, thereby vitiating the proceedings and rendering the Impugned Order liable to be set aside.

D. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeswar Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1955 AIR 65 which protects the assessee's right to full opportunity to be heard and place material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that improper rejection of the assessee's submission by the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and reliance on conjectures and suspicions of the assessing officer is a gross violation of natural justice and directed the appeal to be remanded for reassessment. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) summarily dismissed the appeal by mechanically replicating the unsubstantiated surmises and conjectures of the Assessment Order, without according the Appellant fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Impugned Order is contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling and ought to be set aside.

E. That the Ld. CIT (A) acted in gross violation of the binding directions of Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT) recorded vide Instructions dated 23.12.2003. 19.06.2015 and 08.03.2018 ("Instructions"). The CBDT vide the Instructions repeatedly impressed upon the Ld. CIT (A) to strictly comply with the direction to pass the appellate order within 15 (fifteen) days of the last hearing, and caution that any deviation therefrom shall be viewed adversely. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) passed the Impugned Order after approximately 4 (four) weeks from the date fixed for hearing on 26.09.2025. and that too despite an adjournment application dated 30.09.2025 filed by the Appellant informing the change of counsel and seeking reasonable time to review the records. Even assuming the said application was beyond the prescribed timeframe, the delayed pronouncement itself demonstrates that the Ld. CIT(A) was aware of the Appellant's constraints. Consequently, the Impugned Order stands vitiated for non-adherence to the CBDT-mandated timelines and is liable to be set aside.

F.That the belated Impugned Order ought to be set aside and the appeal ought to be reassessed by Ld. CIT (A) in consonance with the established judicial precedence. It is submitted that, in G. Shoes Exporis v. CIT, MA No. 25/Mum/2017, the Mumbai bench of this Ld. Tribunal, reinforced the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's in Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. ACIT, 317 ITR 433 and held that an inordinately delayed order is liable to be recalled and heard afresh. In the present case, the Ld. CIT (A) passed the Impugned Order after an unwarranted delay of nearly 4 (four) months. Therefore, in light of the established judicial precedent, the Impugned Order is vitiated and ought to be set aside.

G.That the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal which give effect to CBDT's Instructions and nullify belated orders by the Ld. CIT (A). In Noida v. Jayant Budhiraja, ITA No. 1178 DEL 2020, this Hon'ble Tribunal held that deciding an appeal beyond 15 (fifteen) days of the last hearing is a jurisdictional error as it contravene the CBDT's Instruction; therefore, such inordinately delayed order of the Ld. CIT(A) is ultra vires. This is further bolstered by Durgesh Autofin Pvt. Ltd., Bijnor v. ACIT, ITA No. 2605 DEL 2018, wherein this Hon'ble Tribunal held that the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) was invalid as it contravened the 15 (fifteen) days' timelines set out by the CBDT. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the Impugned Order in a mechanical manner nearly four months after the last notice was issued. Therefore, the Impugned Order is invalid in the eyes of law and ought to be set aside.

H. That the Act is a welfare legislation which ought to be interpreted in a manner granting the benefit of doubt to the assessee. Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria v. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur, IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 and Ravikumar Kumhar v. ITO, Bilaspur, ITA No.36/RPR/2024 granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT (A) noting that while there was no compliance by the assessee mala fide cannot be attributed and therefore, benefit of doubt ought to be given favourably. In light of this interpretation of the Act which protects the assessee's interests, the Impugned Order ought to be set aside and a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard must be granted to the Appellant.

That the Appellant reserves the right to amend, modify, or raise additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing with the leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal.”