Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order from the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, for AY 2010-11. The appeal was filed with a delay of 93 days, which the assessee attributed to the illiteracy and reliance on a Chartered Accountant who failed to make timely compliances.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the orders and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after providing an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee, and if the matter should be restored for re-adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
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, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Years: 2010-11 Thippanayekar Nagamalai, The Income Tax Officer No.44, Pullapanaikanoor, Ward-2, Chellappampatti, Namakkal. Namakkal Tamil Nadu-637 019. [PAN: AMWPN7181M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.R.Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065533322(1) dated 11.06.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2010-11. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 11.06.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 93 days in the appeal, in filing before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is illiterate person working in villages and not conversant with tax procedures and electronic working thus he was totally dependent upon his Chattered Accountant. It was submitted that the said Chattered Accountant failed in making timely compliances. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee assured that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay however contended that the cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of the judicial authorities. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities the Ld.AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex- parte orders in case of the assessee. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.25,05,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the Page - 2 - of 5 addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly pleaded that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO for readjudication. The Ld. Counsel assured that full compliance would now be made to the statutory notices. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was however simultaneously pleaded that costs be imposed upon the appellant for wasting the time of the Bench. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. As per facts recorded by the Ld. AO in his order, he had given opportunities to the assessee for filing the required details which were not satisfactorily filed by the assessee leading to his making the impugned addition. We have however noted that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not a speaking order and clear facts have not been brought on records before making the impugned addition. There are also indications of no enquiries conducted by the Ld.AO. Before the Ld.First Appellate Authority also the conduct of the assessee was far from satisfactory as far as compliance to statutory notices are concerned leading to dismissal of the appeal for want of adequate persecution by the assessee.