Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 307 days, with the assessee pleading illiteracy and dependence on their Chartered Accountant. The issue involved an addition of Rs. 16,54,000/- under section 69 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's illiteracy and the absence of willful delay. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' orders to be non-speaking and lacking proper inquiry. The case was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed with a significant delay should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities, which were not speaking orders, should be set aside for proper adjudication.
Sections Cited
69, 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: 2017-18 Murali, Income Tax Officer No.4/2, Villalar Kovil Sannathi Street, Ward-2 Mayiladuthurai. Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu 609 001. [PAN: BGTPM2496L] (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/250/2023-24/1057899745(1) dated 13.11.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2017-18. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 13.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 5
:- 2 -:
2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 307 days in the appeals, in filing before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is an illiterate person and was totally dependent on his Chattered Accountant for attendance to its tax matters. It was urged that the said Chattered Accountant could not act timely leading to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse 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. 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 is engaged in the activity of whole sale business of consumer goods. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.16,54,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has also confirmed the addition by passing an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was accordingly Page - 2 - of 5
:- 3 -: 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. We are however of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file all supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The assessing officer is Page - 3 - of 5
:- 4 -: the primary authority under the income tax act to examine facts of a case in the light of available evidences before determining correct taxable income of a tax payer. We therefore set aside the order of lower authorities on this issue and we direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate the matter de novo by examining the matter afresh in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. We also find force in the argument of the Ld. DR that assessee’s repeated non-compliance has indeed caused loss of precious time of the statutory authorities. Consequently, the decision to remit the matter to the Ld. AO is subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within 30 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 4 - of 5 5 -: 5.0 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 21st , February-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- ( एबी टी. वकी) (अयिताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्यानयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, नदिांक/Dated: 21st , February-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Assessee: 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Revenue 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Madurai 4. नवभागीय प्रनतनिनर्/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF
Page - 5 - of 5