Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a dealer in gold jewellery, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18. The AO made additions of Rs.2,00,31,617/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but did not appear for hearings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and provided the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), setting aside the previous order.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) due to circumstances including the pandemic justifies a fresh opportunity to present the appeal?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM.
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2017-18 against the order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 20.12.2019.
At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 198 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee became aware of the impugned order only on commencement of recovery proceedings by the department. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a registered firm, dealer in gold jewellery and has filed its return of income on 06.11.2017 for A.Y.2017-18, declaring total income of Rs.1,39,430/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS since the assessee had deposited large amounts of cash into bank accounts during the demonetization period and for some other reasons, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices and details called for. In response, the assessee submitted its reply along with details called for consideration. On perusal of the details submitted by the assessee, the AO made a total addition to the tune of Rs.2,00,31,617/- and concluded the assessment proceedings by passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2019.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 20.01.2020.
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided seven opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 4 of the ld.CIT(A) order to support the appeal of the assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 10.01.2025 by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.
The ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) had scheduled the initial hearings during the peak covid period and it could not be properly represented before the first appellant authority. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues to the file of Assessing Officer. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the first appellant authority to complete the appellate proceedings effectively.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that both the Assessing Officer and the ld.CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to appear before them. However, the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the AO has passed order by considering the submissions made by the assessee along with the information available with the department and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A), NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee. Since the assessee has failed to participate before the First Appellate Authority, we levy the cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the assessee shall satisfy the payment of cost before the authorities.
Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we are deeming it fit to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file to ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th December, 2025 at Chennai.