Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income beyond the prescribed time limit for AY 2013-14. The AO re-opened the case u/s 147 due to non-disclosure of interest income, contract payments, and a cash deposit. The AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 as the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-response to notices. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for de-novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if the assessee is entitled to a fresh opportunity for assessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
139(1), 139(4), 148, 147, 69A, 115BBE, 194C, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :
This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14, vide order dated 18.12.2023.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 411 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which the assessee has filed affidavit stating the reasons for delay, wherein, it is submitted that the assessee was unaware of the receipt of the order of the ld.CIT(A) dated 18.12.2023 since he was not checking emails regularly and also the assessee had not received any real time alerts from the department for having uploaded
:-2-: ITA. No:1057/Chny/2025 the order. Only when he was aware of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the first week of February 2025, approached a CA and immediately initiated for filing of appeal. After considering the Affidavit filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for the assessee in not filing appeal on or before the due date prescribed under the law and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and director of M/s. Fine Metal Stamping Pvt. Ltd., filed his return of income on 20.07.2017 for the AY 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs.7,30,270/- after claiming deduction of Rs.92,625/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The return has been filed beyond the time limit u/s.139(1) or 139(4) and hence the return of income is Non-est in law. As per the information available with the department, the assessee had received interest income of Rs.1,72,979/-, contract payments of Rs.4,29,74,519/- and also has made a cash deposit of Rs.34,00,000/- into his bank account during the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee had failed to declare these transactions, the notice u/s.148 was issued and the case has been re-opened u/s.147 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings by not responding to the statutory notices, the AO made an addition of Rs.34,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and business income @ 8%(Rs.34,37,961/-) on contract receipts of Rs.4,29,74,519/- u/s.194C of the Act, based on the material evidence available on records by passing an order u/s.144 of the Act dated 22.03.2022.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC.
:-3-: ITA. No:1057/Chny/2025
At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided five opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed in paragraph 3 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), NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal as deficient by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 18.12.2023. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee had not regularly checked the income tax portal and his email and hence he was not aware of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) and hence he could not appear both before the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A). In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity before the AO, since the exparte order has been passed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment 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 an exparte order by considering 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 before the first appellate authority. 8. In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO and direct the AO to denovo frame the assessment order in accordance to law, after providing reasonable opportunity to :-4-: ITA. No:1057/Chny/2025 the assessee. Needless to say, the 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 court on 22nd August, 2025 at Chennai.