Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,33,000/- on account of unaccounted receipts under Section 69(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged this order before the Ld. Commissioner, but the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices, which were returned as "Unclaimed".
Held
The Tribunal found that the appeal was taken up after a significant delay, and the non-compliance with notices could not be entirely ruled out. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal due to non-compliance with notices, especially when the appeal was processed after a long delay, and if the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 69(a), 115(B)(D)(A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (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. 2017-18.
At the outset, it is observed that in the instant case, the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act passed, made an addition of Rs. 7,33,000/- being unaccounted receipt and added the same in the income of the assessee u/s 69(a) of the Act and taxed as per provision of u/s 115(B)(D)(A) of the Act.
The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said assessment order and the addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on dated 21.01.2020, which was taken into consideration after four years, in the months of January, February and March of 2024, which resulted into non-compliance to the notices sent by Ld. Commissioner and, therefore, the Ld. Commissioner, by considering the dictum of law “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means law will help only those who are vigilant but not those who are careless of their right, affirmed the aforesaid addition, by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
This court has given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by observing that notice sent to the assessee through ITBA is returned back by the postal authority with the remarks “Unclaimed”, meaning thereby the Assessee is not situated at the address mentioned in form No. 35 and therefore, the assessee has nothing to substantiate its non-compliance. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Assessee was taken into consideration after a long gap and therefore, justification for non- compliances of the notices cannot be ruled out. Whatsoever , it may be, admittedly the issue involved in the instant case remained to be adjudicated, in absence of relevant reply/submission/document, in its right perspective and proper manner and hence for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, this court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
It is clarified that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025.