2019 (4) TMI 1913 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 125 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) - Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) - HELD THAT - Assessee is suffering from various diseases and therefore neither could attend the assessment proceedings nor could appoint the advocate or C.A to represent the case. His son Shri Surendra Saini had attended the proceedings who was not fully aware of the affairs of the business and had little knowledge about the income Tax provisions. Assessee s son attended office in response to notice which was delivered to him and remaining notices as mentioned in the order were never served to the assessee. The AO has completed the assessment u/s. 144/147 on dated 14/03/2016 on total income without serving notices and without allowing sufficient opportunity. As the notices could not be served on the appellant hence the appellant could not appear before the ld AO during assessment proceedings. On dated 02/02/2017 the assessee applied for true copies of notices and assessment orders and filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Further therefore proper compliance of various notices could not be made. In this connection medical papers regarding various ailments of the assessee are enclosed which have been verified by me. Therefore in the substantial interest of justice condone the delay ( of 125 days) in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against ex parte penalty orders u/s. 271(1)(b) for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2013-14 due to delay in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A).

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against separate ex parte penalty orders of ld.CIT(A)-3, Jaipur for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2013-14, imposing penalties of ?40,000 each under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had levied penalties for both assessment years. The delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was attributed to the assessee's health conditions, including BP, Sugar, and paralysis attack, which rendered him unable to personally receive notices and orders from the department. The appellant's family members or staff received some notices, but they did not grasp the importance of the notices due to the family's tense situation during the appellant's paralysis attack. The appellant became aware of the Income Tax demand on 30/01/2017 when informed about a bank account seizure. Subsequently, the appellant applied for true copies of orders and filed the appeal within 30 days of receiving the order, requesting condonation of the delay due to reasons beyond his control and health issues.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's health conditions, which prevented him from participating in the assessment proceedings or appointing a representative. The appellant's son, who was not fully knowledgeable about income tax provisions, attended some proceedings, while other notices were not served to the appellant. The assessment was completed without serving notices or providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant. The Tribunal considered the medical papers verifying the appellant's ailments and, in the interest of justice, condoned the 125-day delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the appellant a hearing opportunity within 60 days. The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, both appeals by the assessee against the ex parte penalty orders were allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd April 2019.