SNZ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of Appeal:-

The assessee-company filed its return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 on 21.12.2020 under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), declaring a total income of Rs.35,170/-. Subsequently, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) received information through the Insight Portal, on the basis of which it was noticed that the assessee-company had allegedly availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of purchases amounting to Rs.38,54,100/- from M/s. Shree Arihant Trading Company, Proprietor Shri Rahul Hirenbhai Zaveri (PAN: AARPZ4852C). On examination of the information available on record, it was noticed that the aforesaid concern was involved in transactions relating to ineligible/fraudulent ITC and that the assessee-company, M/s. SNZ Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was one of the recipients of such ITC. Accordingly, the genuineness of the purchases claimed to have been made by the assessee-company from M/s. Shree Arihant Trading Company was required to be examined. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 148A of the Act were initiated and a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee. However, despite being afforded sufficient opportunity in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or represent its case. Consequently, based on the material available on record, an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was a delay of 56 days in filing the appeal, the assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay. However, the Ld.CIT(A), not being satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was caused due to the negligence of the tax consultant engaged by the assessee, who failed to inform the assessee about the passing of the assessment order. It was, therefore, submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. Counsel

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. It is also evident from the assessment order that the assessee remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings even before the Assessing Officer despite being afforded sufficient opportunities. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantial addition made under section 69C of the Act, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant bank statements, documents and explanations before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

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