Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
�थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AOKPK5094G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Smt. Jayashree Thakur.DR Date of Hearing 17.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), passed u/s 143(3) and 250 of the Act.
At the time of hearing, it was brought to the knowledge, that the assessee has filed the appeal on 05.09.2022 and subsequently the appeal was posted for hearing on 12.12.2022 & 13.12.2022 and none
Narsimha Raju Kurur, Mumbai. - 2 - appeared on the dates of hearing and even today i.e on 17.01.2023 there is no appearance. Therefore considering the facts and the action of the assessee in non appearance on the dates of hearing and the presumption is that after filling the appeal, the assessee is not inclined/ interested to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, heard the Ld. DR submissions and considered the material information available on record.
3. Further the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Whereas, the facts mentioned in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal.
4. The assessee has raised the fallowing grounds of appeal:
1. The FAA erred in not considering the facts in Application filed for condonation of delay.
2. Even on Merits the documents were submitted during Assessment proceedings and additions made by the A.O are unwarranted.
Narsimha Raju Kurur, Mumbai. - 3 -
The Appellant otherwise is a regular tax payer and Return of Income for all these years are subsequently filed in time.
The Appeal is filed in time. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds on or before the final date 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of estate broker services and derives income from salary, income from business and income other sources. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 31.07.2014 disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,33,190/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and submitted the details and the case was discussed. The AO on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has offered the income on presumptive taxation basis and further as per the AIR information there are some cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 19,82,700/- in the savings bank account and the assessee was called to explain the sources of deposits.
Narsimha Raju Kurur, Mumbai. - 4 - Whereas, the assessee has filed the explanations by letter dated 16.03.2016 referred at Para 5.1 of the order. But the AO was not satisfied with the explanations as there are no documentary evidences filed in support of deposits and made the addition as unexplained cash deposits. Further the AO has not allowed the deductions claimed under chapter VIA of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 24,58,160/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.03.2016.
Aggrieved by the order the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the scrutiny assessment and found that there is a delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
7. Heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee has not properly explained the reasons for delay with the sufficient cause.
Narsimha Raju Kurur, Mumbai. - 5 - Whereas the asssessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions by the A.O. and there could be various reasons for non submissions of evidences. Hence considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the reasonable/ sufficient cause along with the supporting evidences. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.