Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.09.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 29.07.2017 admitting total income of ₹.2,65,790/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason of large value of imports shown in the export Import Data and non-business or presumptive business return was filed. Notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on 24.09.2018. Subsequently, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued called for details. On verification of bank statement of ICICI Bank account, there was total credit of ₹.13,40,156/- and as per the Kotak Mahindra Bank, there was total credit of ₹.3,78,69,000/-. As per the statement of import, the transactions are having nature of business or professions and the assessee has not admitted any income from business or profession. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice proposing income of the assessee @ 8% of the amount of ₹.3,92,09,156/- as unaccounted business income. However, the assessee has not filed any explanation. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 04.12.2019 by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.31,36,732/- after making addition of ₹.28,70,942/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition in the absence of any written submissions, information or document before the ld. CIT(A) besides filing the appeal belatedly without assigning any reason for the delay.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Moreover, the assessee misunderstood the provisions governing limitation and thus, the ld. counsel prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee was out of the state due to medical treatment, he could not able to submit his explanation either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to offer his explanation before the ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has noted from Form 35 that the appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 29 days in filing the appeal and since no reason for delay in filing of appeal has been given by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the delay cannot be condoned and the appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine on this score itself. It is apparent that the assessee was not aware of the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) since the assessee has been misunderstood the provisions governing limitation as per the petition filed before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, we direct the assessee to file a condonation petition in the form of an affidavit before the ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. As prayed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee to afford an opportunity of being heard, in order to meet the ends of natural justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to give an opportunity to the assessee to furnish his explanation in support of documentary evidence and after considering the same, the ld. CIT(A) shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.