In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur disposed of the appeal filed by Shri Ladu Ram, an agriculturist from a rural area, against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 30th April 2024. The appellant’s appeal had been filed 98 days after the prescribed deadline, prompting the Revenue’s objection regarding its timeliness.
Condonation of Delay
The delay in filing the appeal was sought to be condoned by the appellant’s Authorized Representative (AR) based on the claim that the appellant, an uneducated agriculturist, was unaware of the passing of the impugned order, as he was not using technology or email. The AR argued that it was only after checking the income tax portal in October 2024 that the appellant became aware of the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) and, therefore, took necessary steps to file the appeal before the ITAT.
While the Revenue did not challenge the appellant’s claims, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had authorized the AR to file the appeal and, therefore, it was the AR’s responsibility to keep track of the progress on the Income Tax Department portal. The Tribunal accepted the AR’s submissions, allowing the delay to be condoned but imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
Merits of the Case
The appeal before the CIT(A) was originally filed against an assessment order dated 18th November 2019, concerning the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 12,98,500/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, alleging that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of his agriculturist income of Rs. 9,01,225/-. During the proceedings before the CIT(A), the appellant sought adjournments to produce certain documents but failed to submit a reply to a show-cause notice issued on 17th April 2024 regarding unexplained cash deposits.
Despite the appellant’s failure to reply, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition. The AR contended that the show-cause notice was overlooked, and that the CIT(A) had not considered the application for additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the impugned order did not reference or dispose of the said application.
Tribunal’s Ruling
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not provided the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present his case, particularly with respect to the additional evidence submitted. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order, ruling that the matter should be remitted for a fresh hearing, but this time to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to consider the documents and evidence submitted by the appellant, and to dispose of the case afresh after granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring fair opportunity for the appellant to present his defense and directed the appellant to submit proof of deposit for the costs imposed before the AO proceeds with the assessment.
Outcome
The appeal has been disposed of for statistical purposes, with the impugned order set aside and the case remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The appellant is instructed to provide receipt of the cost deposit before the commencement of proceedings.
This case highlights the importance of ensuring that appellants, particularly from rural areas with limited access to technology, are given due consideration, while also holding authorized representatives accountable for tracking case progress and informing their clients promptly.
Order Pronounced
The order was pronounced in open court on 21st January 2025 by the Jaipur ITAT.
