Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was filed after a delay of 335 days due to an incorrect email ID. The assessee, engaged in a poultry farm, had deposited cash of Rs. 21,73,000/- in SBNs, which the AO added to his income. The CIT(A) upheld the addition ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the matter back for adjudication after providing the assessee another opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently condoned, and if the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order upholding the addition was justified, especially considering principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 15.12.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 21.12.2019.
There is a delay of 335 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating that the delay was due to an incorrect email ID provided in Form-35, which resulted in the assessee being unaware of the dismissal of the appeal.
We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.
The assessee is an individual and engaged in the poultry farm in the name and style M/s GKP Suguna Broilers. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 21,73,000/- in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in his bank account during demonetization period. The assessee has explained that the source of cash deposits as business receipts and submitted copy of books of account in support. However, the A.O did not accept the assessee’s explanation and passed assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act, making addition of cash deposits of Rs.21,73,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte upholding addition made by the A.O.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee ha submitted that the assessee is not well educated and most of the notices were issued during demonetization period and therefore, one more opportunity may be provided to substantiate his claim before the Ld. CIT(A) in the interests of justice.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that four notices were issued during covid period and Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex parte order. We, therefore are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 26th March, 2025.