DEVI CHITRA EKNATH KUBA,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW-2(1), MADURAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 211 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 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 only effective ground raised by the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in dismissing the appeal exparte the assessee by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief facts relating the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹.9,12,580/-. The said case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of genuineness of expenses. Against the statutory notices, the assessee filed relevant requisite documents before the Assessing Officer. Against the notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed the submissions and the same is reproduced at para 4 in page No. 4 to 10 of the assessment order. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee could not furnish confirmation of genuineness of expenses incurred towards contract payment of ₹.65,71,898/- for weaving job works. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued summon under section 133(6) of the Act to the contractor and the contractor neither replied nor provided any details as called for. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the above expenses of ₹.65,71,898/- towards contract payments as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition since the assessee could not furnish any details in response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. AR Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate that non appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond its control. He filed paper book and draw our attention to page Nos. 5 to 126 and submitted that the said documentary evidences are necessary for fair adjudication, but, however, not filed before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the documents and decide the issue on merits.

The ld. DR Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT drew our attention to para 4.1 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) afforded ample opportunities to the assessee, but, it was not availed and supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering the written submissions/ documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee to substantiate his claim. The assessee is also directed to file the documentary evidences before the ld. CIT(A) for his consideration as filed before the Tribunal. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05th March, 2025 at Chennai.