2023 (8) TMI 1514 - AT - Income Tax

Non providing fair, reasonable and proper opportunities to assessee - Disallowance u/s 57 as well as deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act - as submitted husband of assessee died during assessment proceedings i.e., on 16.06.2018 and assessee was under mental stress and trauma so assessee could not make proper compliance against the notice issued by AO - HELD THAT - Assessee has shown reasonable and plausible explanation for non-compliance before lower authorities, therefore, assessee deserves one more opportunity to explain her case before AO. Assessee as well as his representative is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to cause further delay and seek no adjournment without any valid reason and to furnish all information, details and evidences to substantiate her claims, as soon as possible, without any further delay, before the AO. With these directions, the issues raised in the grounds of appeal are restored back to the file of AO to adjudicate / pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Merits of the case regarding non-compliance and opportunity for the assessee to explain her case before the Assessing Officer.
3. Restoration of issues raised in the grounds of appeal back to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication.
4. Decision on the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

1. The delay of eight days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned after considering the circumstances presented by the assessee, including the sudden death of her husband during assessment proceedings, which led to mental stress and trauma affecting her ability to comply with the notice issued.

2. The assessee's representative argued that the lower authorities did not provide fair opportunities for compliance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The representative requested another chance for the assessee to present evidence and substantiate claims, emphasizing the good merit of the case.

3. The Tribunal found the explanation for non-compliance reasonable and directed the restoration of issues back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication. Both the assessee and her representative were instructed to be more vigilant in the future, make timely compliance, and furnish all necessary information promptly.

4. In the case related to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c), since the additions made in the quantum assessment were sent back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty would not stand. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the Assessing Officer permitted to take fresh action if necessary during the reassessment process.

Overall, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, condoning the delays in filing the appeals and providing an opportunity to explain the case before the Assessing Officer. The restoration of issues back to the Assessing Officer and the decision on the penalty were crucial aspects of the judgment, ensuring fair consideration and compliance with legal procedures.