Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, which upheld an addition of Rs. 10,67,000 for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 401 days, with the assessee citing reliance on a Chartered Accountant and lack of electronic working knowledge as reasons for the delay and past non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities, noting that the AO's order was not a speaking order lacking proper enquiries. The matter was remitted back to the AO for *de novo* adjudication, directing the AO to provide proper opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order, subject to the assessee paying Rs. 5,000 as costs for repeated non-compliance.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte addition for cash deposits during demonetization was valid without proper enquiry and opportunity, and if the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication given the assessee's prior non-compliance.
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: 2017-18 Subramanian, Income Tax Officer No.1306/3 Rathinamangalam Road, Ward-2 EB Nagar, Arni, Tiruvannamalai Tamil Nadu-632 301. [PAN: ATDPS0357C] (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/250/2023-24/1055473980(1) dated 28.08.2023 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 28.08.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 401 days in the appeals, in filing before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not conversant with the electronic working and therefore was totally dependent on its Chattered Accountant for attendance to his tax matters. It was urged that the said Chattered Accountant could not act timely leading to the delay and that the assessee learnt of adverse orders only upon initiation of recovery proceedings. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted 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 submitted that cost of imposed for wasting the time of this Bench. 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.10,67,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank during the demonetization period. The Ld. Page - 2 - of 5 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 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 prosecution by the assessee.