The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in a recent case, remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)], providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case on merit again.
The assessee, Smt. Santra, an illiterate housewife, appealed against an order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section 271 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Income Tax Act for alleged concealment of Income or accounting of wrong income.
The order passed called for ₹39,861 as a penalty for alleged concealment of income. This order was met with non-compliance despite several notices by the Assessing Officer ( AO ), who then proceeded ex partie in the proceedings. This was followed by the assessee’s appeal to the CIT( A ), where the CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision in the penalty proceedings. The assessee aggrieved by the order filed two appeals before the ITAT, but these appeals were delayed by 317 and 135 days, respectively.
Step by Step Guidance for Tax Audit & E-filing, Click Here
The assessee contested that she was unaware of the assessment and penalty orders as she relied on her consultants to file the income. The assessee further contested that the delay in filing the appeals was due to the negligence of her consultants, who failed to act on her behalf at the right time. The assessee contested that the penalty order came to her notice only when her consultant informed her months after it was issued, which led to this delay.
The ITAT observed that the appellant had established her ignorance and lack of awareness about the said tax proceedings due to her limited literacy. Still, the assessee could not disown entirely the responsibility of following the tax proceedings by placing such blame on her consultants only.
On reviewing the CIT (A) order, the ITAT observed that the assessee had failed to provide correct documents or records before the CIT(A) during the proceeding,s even after opportunities for such were provided to her. The ITAT considered the assessee’s illiteracy and her reliance on her consultants and deemed it fit to condone the delay, subject to the application of costs. The tribunal asserted that justice must not be denied due to procedural delays, especially when the assessee could not understand the legal characteristics of such proceedings.
The ITAT, which consists of Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) and Narinder Kumar (Judicial Member), remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh proceedings on merits. The tribunal imposed a cost of ₹3,000 on the assessee, directing her to deposit the amount in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund before the reman proceedings start. As a result the appeal was allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
