Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 94 days due to severe illness. The Assessing Officer made several additions due to discrepancies in bank deposits, commission received, travelling expenses, and sundry creditors. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's severe illness. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits after remitting it back to the lower appellate authority.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ)
Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Rinku Rani Panja,………..………………..………Appellant D-28, Burdge Town, Kotwali, Midnapore-721101, West Bengal [PAN:ANIPP7116R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Midnapore, Office of the Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amaravati Building, 1st Floor, Keranitola, Midnaporle-721101, West Bengal Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: June 24, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 30, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Additional/ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune dated 31.01.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2011-2012.
The appeal is time barred by 94 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 28.06.
(A.Y. 2011-2012) Rinku Rani Panja 2024 saying that due to her severe illness and under complete bed rest as per doctor’s advice, she was not aware of any notices of hearing and the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 94 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay of 94 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.
Brief facts of the case are that the assesese filed her return of income on 25.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs.109,160/-. In compliance to statutory notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.11.2012 duly served on the assessee, the assessee filed electronically on 28.01.2013 declaring total income of Rs.1,09,160/-, hence the said e-filed return was treated as the income tax return for the AY 2010-11. The assessee was a commission agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India during the FY 2010-11. The case was selected for scrutiny under section 147 of the Act. For the initiation of scrutiny proceedings, statutory notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.11.2012, (A.Y. 2011-2012) Rinku Rani Panja which was duly served upon the assessee. Statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 12.04.2013 was duly served on the assesee requesting her to furnish details in connection to scrutiny proceedings. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Inspite of repeated notices issued on several dates to the assessee, neither the assessee nor her Authorized Representative furnished those required details nor filed any explanation about the discrepancy between total deposit in Bank account as per Bank Statement in Axis Bank amounting to Rs.27,87,683/- and the commission received plus interest amount totaling to Rs.11,67,711/-, which shows the discrepancy amount of Rs.16,19,972/-. On the other hand, the discrepancy made between the total LIC commission received as shown by the assessee in her Profit & Loss Account amounting to Rs.11,49,332/- and the LIC commission received as per Bank Account statement of Axis Bank amounting to Rs.16,03,860/-, which comes to Rs.4,54,528/-. The ld. Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.16,19,972/- as the assessee could not produce the relevant documentary evidences. The ld. Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.3,44,796/- as discount to customers but the assessee could not show the name and address of the policy holder to whom she has paid discount during FY 2010-11 insptie of issuance of show-cause notice. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited Rs.5,02,772/- under the head “travelling & conveyance”, which seemed to be very high corresponding to the gross commission received by the assesese from LIC and ld. Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee to explain the same. Getting no response from the side of assesese, (A.Y. 2011-2012) Rinku Rani Panja the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,51,386/- being 50% of total expenses claimed at Rs.5,02,772/- under the head “travelling & conveyance”. The assessee also showed in her balance-sheet as on 31.03.2011 along with ITR 4S for the AY 2011- 12 on 25.07.2011 sundry creditors balance to the tune of Rs.3,88,124/-. The assessee was asked to produce the details of sundry creditors along with their names, complete postal address, PAN and amount of balance. Getting no compliance from the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.3,88,124/- as bogus sundry creditors and added to the total income of the assessee. Finally, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs.27,13,440/-. Not being satisfied with the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was being provided to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has no other option except dismissing the appeal and he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
(A.Y. 2011-2012) Rinku Rani Panja 9. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit in support of her condonation petition mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without going into the merit of the case. In the affidavit, assessee stated that she was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and she was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals) due to her severe illness. Therefore, in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, I remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/07/2025.