SYNERGY AUTO INC,SAKINAKA ANDHERI EAST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26 (3) (3), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC

The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee e-filed the return of income on 01.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 5,79,574/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 29.03.2015. The case was selected for regular scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) r/w 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s submissions, learned assessing officer added Rs. 45,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and Rs. 75000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,63,220/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte.

Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal ex-parte. Appellant has also filed delay condonation application along with the appeal memo to condone the delay caused in filing this appeal.

We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.

Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset prayed to condone the delay caused in filing this appeal. Learned AR has further submitted that the ex-parte impugned order may be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merit.

Synergy Auto INC 7. Learned DR opposed assessee’s delay condonation prayer and submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) and supported ex-parte impugned order passed by the first appellate authority.

Appellant assessee has filed delay condonation application stating therein that the delay of 440 days in filing the appeal is bonafide and unintentional. An affidavit on behalf of assessee’s managing director Shri. Nitish Jagdish Rathi has also been filed with the narration of facts that deponent’s mother Mrs. Neela Rathi was diagnosed with the breast cancer in the year 2018 and has since been under continuous medical treatment. The deponent being the only member in the family and the only managing partner in the assessee firm could not attend the business of the firm, which led the assessee to surrender the dealership of Royal Enfield in March 2020, which was the firms principal business. The deponent has further deposed that he came to know in respect of the impugned order only in September 2024 and took immediate steps to file this appeal before the Tribunal. We notice that this appeal was e-filed on 16.09.2024 against the impugned order dated 02.05.2023. In view of unrebutted grounds mentioned in assessee’s affidavit, we condone the said delay caused in filing this appeal.

We notice that learned CIT(A), afforded various opportunities to the appellant assessee on 06.03.2021, 31.08.2021, 20.09.2022 and on 01.05.2023 but for no avail. Learned CIT(A) was therefore compelled to pass the impugned ex-parte Synergy Auto INC order. The conduct of assessee before the first appellate authority cannot be appreciated. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication afresh on merit. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the first appellate authority for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 02.05.2023 is set aside. Order pronounced in open court on 15.01.2025.