Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 183 days, claiming non-receipt of the order. The Assessing Officer had made additions for unexplained investment, cash credit, and commission. The Commissioner dismissed the Assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal considered the peculiar facts and circumstances, noting that the Assessee did provide some documents. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for a fresh decision.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 144, 144B, 69, 68, 69C, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 183 days in filing this appeal, as pointed out by the Registry, on which the Assessee has claimed that due to non-receipt of the impugned order on its email registered as well as in physical form, the delay has been occurred, which was neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reason.
Considering the delay and reasons stated by the Assessee with duly sworn affidavit, though appears to be non- convincing and therefore is not condonable, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment order dt.25.03.2022 has made the addition of Rs.7,30,700/-.
Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that on the basis of information received by the AO to the effect that the Assessee had indulged in client code modification on the NSEL amounting to Rs.7,30,700/- which needs verification, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by recording the reasons for reopening and issuing the notice dated 25.03.2021 u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, various statutory notices were issued to the Assessee. The Assessee neither filed any adjournment nor submitted any reply. Therefore, the AO vide assessment order dated 25.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 & 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,30,700/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.31,00,000/- unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.76,614/- being commission paid u/s 69C of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities eventually made no compliance and/or filed no evidence/documents to substantiate its claim. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by way of impugned order as ex-parte and consequently affirmed the aforesaid additions.
This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the M/s. Pellucid Securities Private Limited parties and the material available on record. The Assessee, from the page nos.61-62 of the paper book, has demonstrated the fact that in response to the notice dated 02.02.2022 issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, had filed its submissions on dated 05.02.2022 with various documents such as covering letter, ITR acknowledgment, STI, tax audit and audit financials, bank details and bank statements, CCM contract, business premise details, cash book copy, scrutiny assessment orders for the last three years, Kushal Holding ledger contract notes, unsecured loan details and confirmation and salary details. The Assessee also demonstrated from page No.65 – 66 which is acknowledgment dated 05.02.2022 the date of submission against the notice issued dated 02.02.2022 u/s 142(1) of the Act whereby the Assessee also filed the details of loans, advances and deposits with ledgers, covering reply letter dated 05.03.2022, bank account transaction with narration, D mat statement, mutual fund statement, global report FNO, salary paid voucher, details of rent paid and confirmation and donation receipt which goes to show contrary to the findings of the AO in the assessment order in mentioning that the Assessee filed no reply. Therefore, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant submissions/documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. This Court also clarifies that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2025.