Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a 13-day delay, which the Tribunal condoned. The Learned CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order, confirming an assessment order that included an addition of Rs.2,09,15770/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee attributed its non-compliance, which led to the ex-parte order, to compelling personal difficulties.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for non-compliance and noted that the Learned CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the case's merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Learned CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to comply, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
The key issues involved the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the validity of an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case, and the addition of unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 115BBE, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Assessment Years: 2019-20 Sri Shunmuga Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, 2 245 7 Salem Main Road, Opp Power Ward-2, House, Komarapalayam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal. Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-638 183. [PAN: ACOFS4025R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / NFAC / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1074355588(1) dated 11.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2019-20. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time.
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 13 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the delay was caused on account of lack of timely professional guidance as well as absence of “Real Time Alert” by the Income Tax Department about its orders. The passage of appellate order was only accidently known to the Chartered Accountant while ascertaining the status of its appeals. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assessee submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assessee and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has passed an ex-parte order thereby confirming the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144, 144B and 115BBE dated 11.03.2024 and that the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to statutory notices. It was pleaded that the non-compliance of the assessee was attributable to compelling personal difficulties and was not intentional. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded for setting aside
Page - 2 - of 4 the case to Ld.CIT(A) and personally assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices of the Ld. CIT(A). 4.0 Per contra the Ld.DR placed reliance upon the order of lower authorities. It was argued that the assessee is a willful defaulter and deserves no relief. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material available on records. It is trite law that no litigant benefits by non- prosecution of its case. The principal issue involves addition of Rs.2,09,15770/- u/s 69A qua unexplained cash deposits in bank account. We find sufficient force in the pleadings of the assessee as to why it could not make compliance before the Ld.CIT(A). We have noted that the Ld.AO has made the addition on the premise of inadequate and deficient compliance by the assessee. We have also noted that apart from merely harping on the issue of no compliance by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has not touched adequately upon merits of the case. Be that as it may be in the interest of justice, we set aside the assailed order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee shall make necessary compliances and any deviation would be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 3 - of 4 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 10th , Sept-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 10th , Sept-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF
Page - 4 - of 4