Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 354 days. The assessee contended that they had no knowledge of the impugned order until penalty proceedings, and argued there was no delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue argued that notice was served by affixture.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of service of notice or the impugned order. Consequently, it was held that there was no delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also noted additions made under Section 69A of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal was filed within the limitation period, and if the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A are sustainable.
Sections Cited
144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.
The Registry found this appeal is filed with a delay of 354 days. The ld. AR submits there was no communication from first appellate authority about the passing of impugned order nor service of the order. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 2 of the paper book and argued that no notice nor the impugned order served to the said e-mail ID. Further, he drew our attention page 8, 10, 11 & 12 and submits though proper e-mail ID given in Form 35and in the return of income, no such correspondence delivered to the assessee on the said e-mail ID. The assessee came to knowledge of the impugned order only in the penalty proceedings where the respondent- Revenue brought to the notice about passing of impugned order and immediately, the assessee filed the present appeal. He argued that there is no delay at all in filing the present appeal and drew our attention to Col. No.11 of Form 36.
The ld. DR submits that the notice was served on the assessee by affixture and the assessee is in the knowledge of first appellate authority passing the impugned order.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of paper book containing pages 1 to 12, it is noted that the Revenue did not bring on record any evidence showing the service of notice nor the impugned order and accordingly, in the absence of any such evidence, we hold that there is no delay.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 144 of the Act, inter alia, making addition under 3 section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money in the absence of any evidence in support of the contention of the assessee, which is clear from para 2 to 5 of the assessment order. Further, it is clear from para 3.1 to 3.4 of the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance of notices issued in the first appellate proceedings. It is not disputed by the ld. DR. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee shall cooperate in the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer shall pass order in accordance with the law. The assessee is at liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his contentions. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.