Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 31,15,000 for unexplained cash deposits, where both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-compliance. There was also a 354-day delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal, which the assessee attributed to unfamiliarity with electronic communication.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the lower authorities' ex-parte orders were not speaking orders. Consequently, the case was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a fresh opportunity to present their case and comply with notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte assessment/appellate orders regarding unexplained cash deposits should be set aside for fresh adjudication due to lack of proper opportunity.
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, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2928/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Sikanthar Mydeen, Income Tax Officer, No.9/D1, Ahmisapuram Mela Theru Non.Corporate Ward-2(3), Extn, Pallivasal Street, Sellur, Madurai. Madurai-625002. [PAN: CWQPM9546R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 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/250/2023-24/1056331834(1) dated 20.09.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2018-19. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 20.09.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 354 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not very conversant with electronic communications system and hence could not check the orders in its registered email which was almost in operative. The assesse learnt of departments orders 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. 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 assesse. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.31,15,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits in assesses bank account for which no explanation could be offered . The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the Ld. AO and the Ld. First Appellate Authority have Page - 2 - of 5 passed ex-parte orders 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 the Ld.AO for re-adjudication. The assessee has assured that it shall make full compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Ld.AO. The Ld. DR would like to make us believe on the correctness of the order of lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee has not responded to notices sent by the twin statutory authorities and therefore no case of any relief is made out.
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. 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. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is also based upon only the mis- conduct of the assessee of non-compliance.
Page - 3 - of 5 5.0 We have noted that in the present appeal the conduct of the assessee before both the lower authorities comprising the Ld. AO and the Ld CIT(A) has been far from satisfactory, compelling them to pass ex parte orders. 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 filed supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. 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. 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. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.