Case Law Details
Mohammad Saleem Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The case of Mohammad Saleem v. ITO, Ward 63(3), New Delhi 110002 [ITA No.28/Del/2023], presided over by ITAT, New Delhi, has seen a landmark ruling. This judgment, dated June 7, 2023, validated that an absence of email access, which led to the non-communication of the appeal’s dismissal by CIT(A), serves as a reasonable justification for a 191-day delay in filing an appeal to the ITAT, thereby permitting condonation of delay for appeal submission.
Facts:
Mohammad Saleem (“the Appellant”) has limited education, earning income from running a government-run ration shop or food grains shop. The Appellant filled an appeal on January 03, 2023 against the order dated April 27, 2022 (“the Impugned Order”) passed by the Commissioners of Income-Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
The Appellant was required to file the Appeal on or before June 26, 2022. However, the Appellant was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). This lack of awareness was due to communication of the Impugned Order solely through email. Unfortunately, the Appellant did not have access to email due to limited financial resources and a lack of knowledge in utilizing such technology.
The Appellant became aware of the dismissal of the first appeal upon receiving a penalty notice on October 18, 2022. Subsequently, recognizing the need to take action, the Appellant filed the appeal on January 3, 2023, with a delay of 191 days.
Issue:
Whether delay of 191 days can be condoned on the ground that the Appellant has no access to E-mail?
Held:
The ITAT, New Delhi, in ITA No.28/Del/2023 held as under:
- Observed that, Revenue Department has not controverted that the order of lower authority was communicated to the Appellant through mail.
- Noted that, where the Appellant, due to limited resources and lack of knowledge, did not have access to electronic communication, the delay of 191 days in discovering the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) can be considered a valid reason justifying the delay.
- Held that, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
****
ITAT Delhi Rules Against Second Assessment on Same Issue in Same Year in Mohammad Saleem Vs ITO Case
Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not conduct a second assessment on the same issue within the same assessment year, emphasizing the importance of procedural integrity in tax matters.
Analysis: The appeal by Mohammad Saleem contested the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), claiming that the reassessment conducted by the ITO was redundant as an assessment on the same issue had already been performed by the ITO in a different ward.
After condoning the delay in filing the appeal due to insufficient knowledge and means to access electronic communication, ITAT proceeded to address the central issue at hand. The ITO of Ward 63(3) in New Delhi had performed a reassessment for the assessment year 2011-12, notwithstanding that the ITO of Ward 47(2) in Delhi had already conducted a reassessment on the same matter for the same year earlier. The tribunal found that the second assessment order was invalid and should be deemed void.
The tribunal’s ruling effectively nullified both the second assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward 63(3), and the consequent first appellate order. While it allowed the legal ground of the assessee, it left the second ground, pertaining to the addition of cash deposits in a Saving Bank Account, unadjudicated due to lack of arguments from both sides.
Conclusion: The ITAT Delhi’s ruling in the Mohammad Saleem Vs ITO case affirms the fundamental principle of avoiding duplicity in assessments. The verdict underscores the need for procedural clarity and consistency in tax matters, a requirement that, if adhered to, can significantly reduce legal disputes and streamline the tax administration process.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.04.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12.
Application of assessee seeking condonation of delay
2. The ld. assessee’s representative (AR) submitted that the appeal against order dated 27.04.2022 ought to have been filed on or before 26.06.2022 but due to lack of knowledge of the fact of dismissal appeal by the ld. CIT(A) was not came to the notice of assessee as the order was send through mail only and assessee has not access to the mail due to miser means and lack of knowledge. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of first appeal on receipt of penalty notice received on 18.10.2022 and the assessee filed appeal on 03.01.2023 by the delay of 191 days which may kindly be condoned and appeal of assessee may kindly be admitted for hearing. Assessee has also filed his affidavit supporting above facts. The Senior DR opposed to the condonation of delay.
3. On careful consideration of above submissions, the assessee first of all, we note that the assessee is a less literate person earning income from running a ration shop/food grains Govt. shop. The assessee is not getting anything except harassment in filing delayed appeal. The ld. Senior DR has not controverted that the order of NAFC are sent through mail and in a situation when the assessee due to his lack of means and knowledge has no access to the electronic communication mode then the delay caused due to the lack of knowledge of dismissal appeal by the ld. CIT(A) is a sufficient cause explaining the delay of 191 days. There is no rebuttal affidavit on behalf of the revenue countering the affidavit filed by the assessee therefore we have no hesitation to held that the assessee has successfully explained delay of 191 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Hence the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing.
4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the facts of the case that assessment on the same issue has already been done by the ITO, ward 47(2) New Delhi.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CITA() erred in law and on the facts while confirming the addition of Rs. 17,87,000 on account of cash deposits in a Saving Bank Account.
5. The ld. assessee representative (AR) submitted that the assessment order under challenge in this appeal has been filed by ITO, Ward 63(3) New Delhi on 06.08.2018. He further submitted that prior to that for the same AY 201-12 ITO ward 47(2), Delhi have already passed reassessment order u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act on 28.09.2018 much prior to the passing of impugned assessment order dated 06.08.2018 for the same assessment year therefore subsequent assessment order is not valid being void and nullity.
6. Replying to the above, the ld. Senior DR submitted written report vide dated 06.06.2023 by ITO ward 63(1), New Delhi and submitted that the assessee after completion of the assessment dated 06.12.2018 filed a copy on 07.12.2018 that he has been assessed on 28.09.20 18 by ITO, Ward 47(2), Delhi. The jurisdiction of the PAN of the assessee with the erstwhile Ward-63(3), Delhi and at present Ward-63(1), Delhi after restructuring. However, he did not controvert a clear factual position that for AY 2011-12 the Assessing Officer ITO, Ward 47(2), Delhi passed reassessment order on 28.09.2018 and thereafter the ITO, Ward 63(3) also passed second assessment order for the same AY 2011-12 u/s. 147/144 of the Act ex-parte qua assessee. In such a situation subsequent ex-parte reassessment order cannot be held as sustainable and valid being bad in law. Therefore grievance of assessee is allowed and impugned assessment order dated 06.12.2018 and consequent first appellate order dated 27.04.2022 are quashed being not valid and unsustainable. Accordingly, ground no. 1 of assessee is allowed.
7. Since we have granted relief to the assessee by allowing legal ground no. 1 of assessee and neither the ld. representatives of both the sides have submitted any arguments on ground no. 2 on merits nor we find it unnecessary to dwell upon and adjudicating the same in absence of any submissions by the parties. Therefore, ground 2 on merits is not adjudicating and left open.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.06.2023.
*****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
