GANESH NATARAJAN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-30, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2235/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 October 2023AY 2010-20114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering that the appeals were decided ex-parte due to the email issue and the absence of physical notices, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay, which was attributed to emails from the CIT(A)'s office going into the junk folder. The original assessment involved an addition of unexplained investment under Section 69B.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication due to ex-parte orders caused by email delivery issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani
For Respondent: MS Smitha V. Nair
Hearing: 04.10.2023Pronounced: 10.10.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 2235/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 2236/Mum/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member:

1.

The Assessee/appellant herein has preferred these appeals against the orders dated 01.03.2023 & 27.05.2023 impugned passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi {in short ‘NFAC ’}/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “ Ld. Commissioner” u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12.

2.

As both the impugned orders are ex-parte and having involved identical issues, therefore, for sake of brevity, are being disposed of by this composited order. is lead case, in which at the outset it has been observed that there is a delay of 52 days in filing of the instant appeal. The Assessee claimed that e-mail sent by the ld. CIT(A)’s office went into junk/span folder and therefore, the Assessee failed to know about any notice of hearing. However subsequently checking e- mail, it was found by the Assessee that various notices have been received from ld. CIT(A) and also an order was passed by ld. CIT(A) as ex-parte. It is fact that “No physical notices” were issued by ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the Assessee was not aware about any hearing before ld. CIT(A). Somehow the delay has been occurred in filing the instant appeal, which was not due to any willful or intentional default but in fact the same was due to bonafide mistake. The Assessee in support of said contentions also filed duly sworn affidavit. The ld. DR on the contrary refuted the claim of the Assessee. I have given thoughtful consideration the claim of the Assessee and in the absence of any contrary material, find the same as genuine and bonafide and therefore I am inclined to condone the delay, hence the same is condoned.

4.

Coming to the merits of the case, I observe that the AO vide order dated 22nd Dec, 2017 u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, assessed the income of the Assessee to the tune of Rs.

3 & 2236/Mum/2023 Ganesh Nataranjan . 14,47,500/- by making addition of Rs. 14,47,500/- u/s 69B of the Act as unexplained investment, which has been affirmed by the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order against which the Assessee is in appeal before this bench. I observe that during the course of appellate proceedings, various notices have been issued to the Assessee however as the Assessee claimed that it was unable to see the notices sent by ld. CIT(A) as the notices sent through e-mail went into junk/span folder. Therefore, the Assessee was unable to know about the notices for the dates of hearing and exact status of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Mr. Prakash Jotwani, Ld. Advocate also claimed that it is admitted fact that no physical notices have ever been issued to the Assessee however now, the Assessee will appear and co-operate with the appellate proceedings and therefore requested for remand back the case to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The ld. DR also suggested the same way out as requested by ld. AR. Hence considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for the just decision of the case and the ends of the justice and to resolve the controversy, I am inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say by according reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate with the appellate proceedings and appear if requires and file the relevant document(s) which would be needed for proper and real adjudication of the case and in case of default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any kind of leniency. Ordered accordingly.

4 & 2236/Mum/2023 Ganesh Nataranjan . 5. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for the statistical purposes, on the same terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th Oct, 2023.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →