Savita Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Patna)
Assessee, an uneducated village housewife, was reopened u/s 147 based on information that she possessed term deposits of ₹5.33 crore. Having received only the initial notice, she responded through a local advocate denying the transaction, but subsequent notices went to a wrong email ID mistakenly entered on the portal. AO proceeded ex parte u/s 144/147 & added the entire ₹5.33 crore u/s 69A. CIT(A) refused to condone 140 days’ delay & dismissed the appeal in limine.
Before Tribunal, Assessee produced affidavit & Union Bank certificate proving that the FD was only ₹5.33 lakh, not ₹5.33 crore, & explained lack of digital literacy, non-receipt of notices & ignorance of proceedings. Tribunal held that these additional evidences go to the root of the matter, that delay ought to have been condoned, and that the assessment was passed without proper opportunity. Order of CIT(A) was set aside & the entire matter remanded to AO for de novo assessment, directing AO to consider threshold limits u/s 149 for reopening & to drop proceedings if escaped income is below limit, after issuing notices both by post & electronic means.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PATNA
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 dated 22.02.2025.
