Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their earlier appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The current appeal was delayed by 321 days, which was attributed to the assessee becoming an NPA and facing proceedings for possession of their office. The delay was condoned by the tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance before the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed beyond the limitation period should be condoned and the matter be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, and whether the additions made by the AO under Section 69A and 115BBE were justified.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 27.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.01.2024 passed u/s.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 3,94,11,110/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the footing that the cash sales declared by the appellant were not satisfactorily explained.
2. In the facts of the appellant’s case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the impugned addition made u/s 69A without appreciating that a. Provisions of section 69A had no application as the appellant had recorded the proceeds of cash sales of jewellery/gold bullion in its books of accounts. b. Since the appellant had already declared the impugned proceeds as sales the addition made u/s 69A would amount to double addition more so as the learned AO has accepted the impugned cash sales as genuine. c. The appellant had ample stock in hand to make the sales reference.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the ground of the appellant that in the facts of the case, provisions of section 115BBE had no application.
4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it is submitted that the addition of gross cash sales account is not at all justified and that at the highest only a token GP addition could be made.”
3. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is delayed by 321 days. In order to explain the delay, an affidavit has been filed by the assessee along with supporting documentary evidence explaining the reasons for the delay. It is stated that the assessee had become a Non-Performing Account (NPA) with the Kotak Mahindra Bank in FY 2021-22 after which the bank had initiated proceedings to take possession of the shop/office of the assessee. Only after the payment was made to the bank on 31.12.2024, the possession of the office was received back by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal against the order of Ld.
A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Jewel House Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A) which was due to be filed before 30.03.2024 was delayed and could be filed only on 13.02.2025. In view of the circumstances explained by the assessee, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay on 321 days in the filing of the present appeal and therefore the delay is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return declaring total income of Rs. 24,74,830/- on 28.10.2017 and the assessment was completed vide order u/s 144 dated 20.12.2019 at an income of Rs. 4,18,85,940/-.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since no compliance to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) was made, the appeal was dismissed exparte vide order dated 29.01.2024.
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, it has been submitted by the Ld. AR that for the reasons explained in the affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, no compliance could be made before Ld. CIT(A) and has, therefore, requested for remanding back the matter to Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has also not controverted the proposition made by the Ld. AR.
In the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after giving due A.Y. 2017-18 Shree Jewel House Pvt. Ltd. opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.