Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 456 days, which the assessee attributed to health complications and reliance on their accountant. The sole issue was an addition of Rs. 12,23,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's explanation and the lack of serious objections from the Revenue. The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter de novo, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh 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, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Years: 2017-18 Vediappan Selvam Mohan, Income Tax Officer, No.1746, Kamarajar Nagar, Thanipadi, Ward-2, Tiruvannamalai, Thanipadi S.O, Tiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu-608708. Chennai. [PAN: BOVPM0856C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Girish Kumar, 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/250/2023-24/1053782797(1) dated 19.06.2024 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 assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 19.06.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 456 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse has been suffering from health complications Page - 1 - of 5 and was therefore dependent upon his accountant who failed to act timely in statutory compliances leading to a fall out. The assesse learnt of departments orders upon ignition 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 assessee engaged in the activity of paddy and rice business. It was submitted that the only issue under consideration is an addition of Rs.12,23,000/- 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 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.CIT(A).
Page - 2 - of 5 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. The Ld. DR submitted that in the event of remitting the case back to the Ld. CIT(A), cost be imposed upon the assessee for wasting the precious time of statutory authorities. 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. 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 therefore of the view that ends of justice would be Page - 3 - of 5 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. We however 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. CIT(A) is however subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- 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 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 4 - of 5 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 7th , February-2025 at Chennai.