Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its return for AY 2013-14 admitting income of Rs.60,99,510/-. The case was reopened due to undisclosed cash deposits of Rs.23,15,37,155/- in a bank account. The AO passed an ex-parte order adding this amount as unexplained income under Section 69A, which was upheld by the CIT(A) NFAC.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the company's non-functioning status. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, directing that a reasonable opportunity be provided to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order is to be upheld when the assessee failed to appear, and whether the delay in appeal filing is justifiable. The Tribunal's decision to reopen the case for denovo assessment with a direction for opportunity.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
V P Kuhan Feeds and The Income Tax Officer, Poultries Private Ltd., Vs. Ward-1, S.F.NP.208/5A & 5B, 121, Adams Bldg, Nathapalayam Post, 60 Feet Road, Peramiyum Road, Tirupur – 641 602. Mulanur, Tirupur – 638 106. PAN: AACCV-3267-B (��यथ�/Respondent) (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14, dated 30.08.2024.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company, deriving had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 admitting a total income of Rs.60,99,510/-. The case was reopened
:-2-: ITA. No:486 /Chny/2025 for the reason that the company has “deposited cash of Rs.23,15,37,155/- in Canara bank account during the F.Y. 2012-13 without mentioning this account in the return of income filed.
The AO issued statutory notices calling for details in support of cash deposits made of Rs.23,15,37,155/-. The assessee failed to respond to the notices and hence the AO passed an exparte order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.23,15,37,155/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act to the returned income. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC.
The ld.CIT(A), NFAC upheld the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee, since the assessee has failed to utilise the opportunities for hearing provided on 5 occasions and passed an order dated 30.08.2024.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before us with a delay of 110 days.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 110 days in appeal filed by the assessee, for which petition for condonation of delay along with reasons that the assessee company is not functioning and hence the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) was not noticed. After considering the petition filed by the assessee and also hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for :-3-: ITA. No:486 /Chny/2025 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 appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.
Further, the ld.AR submitted that the company was not functioning its activities and hence could not attend the notices issued by the authorities and hence prayed for one more opportunity to represent before the AO. The ld.AR also undertaken to appeal before the AO from time to time and submit the necessary documents and evidence during the assessment proceedings.
Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee is negligent in responding to the notices of the department and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival parties and perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the Assessing Officer has passed exparte order by considering the information available with the department and made an addition and the same has been dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) - NFAC due to non-participation of the assessee in the first appellate proceedings. Since the assessee has failed to participate both before the AO as well as the appellate proceedings, we levy the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble High Court of Madras
:-4-: ITA. No:486 /Chny/2025 and produce proof of payment of cost to the Registry within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to meet the ends of justice and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company vs CIT, [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and direct AO to denovo frame the order in accordance to 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 25th April, 2025 at Chennai.