Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company failed to file its return of income for AY 2012-13. The AO reopened the assessment and made additions based on unexplained cash deposits, bank credits, and rental payments, treating them as undisclosed income. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal without deciding on merit due to non-submission of documents.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee's director. However, since the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the AO for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned and whether the CIT(A)'s dismissal on technical grounds warrants a remand to the AO for deciding the case on merit.
Sections Cited
250, 5, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3), 147, 155BBF
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sun Valley Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 7, Tank Road Ulsoor ITO Bangalore 560 042 Vs. Ward 6(1)(1) Karnataka Bangalore PAN NO :AALCS0921J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Department by : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 4.11.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070079635(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13.
The assessee has raised 14 grounds of appeal.
At the outset, there is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the assessee has submitted an affidavit dated 21/02/2025 for condonation of delay stating the cause for such delay, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:
On going through the above affidavit, we take a note of the fact that main contention cited by the assessee is that the director of the assessee company Mr. Sundeep Bhandari who was travelling to Dubai on business trip fell ill and was under the treatment in Dubai & was advised complete rest. The director of the company assessee returned to Bangalore only on 14.2.2025 and for this cause there is a delay of only 18 days in filing the appeal and 4.1 Perused the record and it is perceived that the explanation offered in the affidavit for condonation is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the Director of the assessee company, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified period before this Tribunal, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal & admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee company had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13. However, on verification of the information available, it was noticed that although the assessee had deposited cash but did not offer the same to tax. Since the assessee had not filed the return for the assessment year 2012-13, the AO reopened the assessment after recording the reason and obtaining the approval of ld. PCIT, Bangalore-6. Accordingly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.4.2019 declaring current year losses of Rs.2,22,432/-. The AO thereafter issued notices u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act calling for various details and information. The assessee furnished details in response to the said notices. On verification, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 10.12.2019 by making the following additions: a) The cash deposited amounting to Rs.21,62,666/- into the Oriental Bank of Commerce during the period 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 were treated as unexplained sources by not accepting the contention of the assessee that the cash was received from the Directors as loans and advances.
Sun Valley Food and Beverages Pvt Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 7 b) The bank deposits to the tune of Rs.33,83,415/- by the Director Shri Sandeep Bhandari and Smt. Rajshree Bhandari was added as unexplained credit in the bank account and taxed u/s 155BBF of the Act as the assessee had not submitted supporting documentary evidences. c) The rental payments of Rs.4,45,500/- paid to the Director of the company were disallowed and brought to tax on the ground that no rent agreement was executed and also no tax was deducted at source on such rental payment. Further, the Director had also not declared such rental receipt in his return of income.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in spite of issuing several notices, the assessee did not file any written submission and accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee is no more interested in pursuing its appeal. Since there was no submission/evidence available on record relating to merit and in support of the grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts, no decision was rendered by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on merit of the case.
8. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On going through the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, we take note of the fact that ld. AO has made the additions solely on the ground that the assessee could not submit the supporting documentary evidences in support of his claim. Further, on going through the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we take note of the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without considering the merit of the case. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, the entire issues in dispute are remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents/records/financials/reports/information to substantiate its claim. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th Sept, 2025