Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return for AY 2013-14, which was selected for scrutiny due to large property investments. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3), adding unexplained investment under Section 69 and disallowing deduction under Section 54F. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions and dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices, which the assessee attributed to unfamiliarity with electronic proceedings and a head injury. The current appeal to the ITAT was filed with a 321-day delay, which was condoned.
Held
The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's reasons for non-compliance before the CIT(A), including medical evidence of a head injury. Given this, and the Revenue's concession, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present their case and decide the issues on merits. The assessee is also mandated to furnish all necessary details before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming additions ex-parte, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) due to reasons of non-compliance.
Sections Cited
143(2), 143(3), 69, 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
Year: 2013-14 Nanjundapuram Sethupathy Kalidas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15-A, Annamadam Lane, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Nanjundapuram, Coimbatore 641 036. Coimbatore. [PAN:ANKPK0170C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 321 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons along with medical reports. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 12 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer by passing exparte order in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an individual and furnished return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 27.03.2025 declaring total income of ₹.2,18,040/-. The case was selected for scrutiny in order to verify large investment in property as compared to total income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 31.08.2015. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 and determined total income of the assessee at ₹.43,59,887/- by making addition of ₹.12,89,455/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and also disallowed deduction under section 54F of the Act amounting to ₹.27,89,392/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not comply to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) or filed any written submissions with supporting documentary evidences.
The ld. AR Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) issued e-notices and the assessee did not comply with the e-notices since he assessee was not conversant with the electronic regime of the income tax proceedings coupled with the poor health condition on account of head injury faced during accident. Non-compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed that the assessee may be afforded one more opportunity to prosecute his case before the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by making various additions against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). As per para 4 of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) issued hearing notices dated 16.12.2020, 16.09.2022, 14.11.2022, 24.11.2022, 15.12.2022, 09.02.2023, 22.08.2023, 30.10.2023 and 20.12.2023 to furnish ground- wise written submission along with supporting documentary evidences, but, however, the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Considering the submissions of the ld. AR that the assessee was not conversant with the electronic regime of the income tax proceedings coupled with the poor health condition on account of head injury faced during accident, as the assessee furnished medical records for treatment of head injury, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim and decide the issues on merits in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details before the ld. CIT(A) without fail. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 16th June, 2025 at Chennai.