BHADRAVADI JUTH SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR, GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 1(10), BHAVNAGAR

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte best judgement assessment order making the impugned addition on account of unexplained cash deposits into the bank account of the assessee. He has further submitted that the earlier Counsel appointed by the assessee did not properly represent the case before the Assessing Officer. That the assessee has duly furnished all the details to its tax consultant which were required to be further uploaded on the Income Tax Portal, however, the said consultant of the assessee did not furnish the requisite information to the Assessing Officer, resulting into passing of the ex-parte assessment order. He has further submitted that even the said consultant did not inform the assessee about passing of the assessment order and therefore, the assessee was not aware of the passing of the impugned assessment order and hence could not filed the appeal in time before the Ld.CIT(A), resulting into a considerable delay of 966 days before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the appeal in limine as being barred by limitation.

The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has all the account details and evidences regarding the source of deposits in the bank account of the assessee, which is a credit society. He has submitted that assessee has filed separate application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules and requested that assessee may be given an opportunity to represent his case before the Assessing Officer.

The Ld.DR, however, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submission. Considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee, we are of the view that assessee has a fair case on merits, however, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the lower Asst.Year 2018-19 3 authorities, resulting into impugned addition. Though there seems to be delay and lapses on the part of the assessee, however, at the same time, we are of the view that if the delay is not condoned and the matter is not adjudicated on merits, the assessee may be burned with unreasonable taxes. Therefore, taking the balanced view and in the interest justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent his case before the Assessing Officer, however, subject to deposit of reasonable costs. Accordingly, we direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the Assessing Officer. Subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Needles to say, that the Assessing Officer will give adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case and examine the evidences furnished by the assessee and thereafter to pass afresh assessment order in accordance with law. The assessee shall remain vigilant and promptly participate in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The assessee is also directed to furnish its correct email ID before the Assessing Officer within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order, at which the notices of hearing will be issued. It shall not be a ground for the assessee that the notices of hearing issued to such email did not come to the notice of the assessee.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.