Abdul Hamid Nachar Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Amritsar bench, in the case of Abdul Hamid Nachar Vs. Income Tax Officer, remanded an appeal back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for reconsideration. The assessee, Abdul Hamid Nachar, had initially filed an appeal with the CIT(A) that was delayed by 257 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a proper hearing, without first admitting it for adjudication or condoning the significant delay.
Before the ITAT, the assessee argued that the delay was caused by a combination of factors: the assessment order was not served on a registered email, and a family member was undergoing prolonged medical treatment. The assessee’s counsel claimed that the email on file belonged to a previous agent, and the postal service delivered the order to an unknown person. The medical documents were presented to the ITAT to support the claim of circumstances beyond the assessee’s control. The department’s counsel, however, expressed reservations about the substantial delay and the validity of the reasons provided. The ITAT acknowledged the medical documents but felt the CIT(A) should have given the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay before dismissing the appeal.
The ITAT’s decision to remand the case was based on the principle of ensuring a proper opportunity for a hearing. The tribunal noted that a fair hearing was not provided by the CIT(A) on the matter of condoning the delay. Consequently, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to submit documents and explanations to justify the 257-day delay. Only after satisfactorily explaining the delay should the CIT(A) proceed to hear the appeal on its merits. The ITAT’s order did not express an opinion on the merits of the reasons for the delay itself but rather emphasized the need for due process. The appeal was therefore allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was sent back to the lower appellate authority for a new hearing.
