AJAY MALSHI DEDHIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(1), MUMBAI

This appeal is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 11.05.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

Aggrieved the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee sought adjournments in response to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and did not respond to the last of the notices. Since the assessee did file not file any documents before the Ld.CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal and confirming the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The appeal before is filed with a delay of 42 days i.e. the appeal is filed on 22.08.2023 instead of 10.07.2023. The assessee has filed a petition dated 16.08.2023 requesting for condoning the delay. We heard the parties on the issue of condonation of delay. In our considered view the delay is not intentional and there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC)

The ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) in response to the notices and therefore was seeking adjournment. In response to the last of the notices the assessee tried to upload online, the various details called for by the CIT(A) in order to substantiate the genuineness of the loan but could not do so due to technical issues. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to submit the relevant details and contend the issues on merits before the CIT(A).

The ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that the assessee was given various opportunities which is evident from the notices issued by the CIT(A) from time to time and that the assessee did not make any attempt to submit the details . Accordingly, the ld. DR prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld.

We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We noticed that the AO has treated the loan transaction as income under section 68 of the Act based on statements recorded under section 132(4) from one Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and Shri Rajendra Jain who have stated that they are entry operators providing accommodation entries and that one of the beneficiaries is a proprietary concern operated by the assessee. We also noticed that the AO after perusing the various submitted by the assessee had made the addition for the reason that the genuineness of the transaction could not be substantiated by us. The CIT(A) has issued notice to the assessee on various dates i.e. 19.02.2021, 09.07.2021, 02.12.2022, 21.12.2022 and 18.04.2023. The assessee has sought adjournments on the first five notices and as per the order of the CIT(A) the Ajay Malshi Dedhia assessee did not file any reply to the notice dated 18.04.2023. It is also relevant to notice here that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine since the assessee did not furnish any details to substantiate the genuineness of the additions made by the AO. Considering the facts of the present case, we are of the view that in the interest of naturally justice and fair play, the assessee be given one more opportunity to represent the case on merits before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are remitting the appeal back to the CIT(A) for consideration of the issues contended afresh by calling for relevant details and decide in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish the details as may be called for without seeking any adjournments and co-operate in the appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.