Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2011-12, which was delayed by 46 days. The appeal challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer for unconfirmed cash receipts and un-reconciled cash deposits. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard, as the notice was sent to an outdated email ID.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 46-day delay in filing the appeal. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard, while also cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the validity of the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unconfirmed cash receipts and un-reconciled cash deposits, and the alleged lack of proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/s Himansu Sekhar Senapati Vs ITO, Ward 22(4), Kolkata 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4th 24, NS Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata- Floor, Kolkata-700016, West Bengal 700001, West Bengal PAN No. :ALPPS 7769 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Pallash Chattopadhyay, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi dated 19.09.2024 passed for Assessment Year 2011-12.
At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, I find that the appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 46 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating reasons for delay in filing the appeal due to lack of knowledge in passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A), which caused the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. Ld. Sr. DR also did not raise any objection to condone the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions made by the assessee in the affidavit, I condone the delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
3. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding the Addition as Unconfirmed Cash Receipts from 11. Clients amounting to 8,85,758 for e-payment of Tax without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity to submit the confirmation before the Ld. AO and CIT(A)/NFAC. The Appellant prays to accepts evidence in form of Confirmation from 11. Clients amounting to Rs. 8,85,758/- for e-payment of Tax which was submitted before Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata and ITO Ward 22(4), Kolkata against remand report proceeding and may kindly be deleted the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is also wrong and has erred in law in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding the Addition as Un reconciled Cash deposits without considering the facts and submission of the Appellant as regards Un reconciled Cash deposits was from the cash withdrawn from Credit Cards, Cash received against Profession Fees and Agricultural Income. The Appellant prays that addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted.
3. The Ld CIT(A)-NFAC erred in coming to the conclusion in his order u/s.250 dated 19/09/2024 that the Appellant was not interested in pursuing its appeal at a time when it is clear that the Appellant was not aware of the fact that the hearing notice had been served to his old email id which was not operated from a few years back, whereas he had mentioned the address in form 35 to send notice for hearing u/s 250 and passed an order on that date without giving further opportunity of being heard..”
4. The above grounds have been raised by the assessee in Form 36 filed before the Tribunal. A bare perusal of ground No.3, shows that the assessee has requested to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh in the back ground of when the appellant was not aware of the fact that the notice has been served to his old email ID and passed an order on that date without giving further opportunity of being heard.
5. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee reiterated his submission as were made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It is not a fact that the assessee was unaware of the passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the ld. Sr. DR requested to uphold the orders of the authorities below.
After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the material available on record along with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form 35, it is clear that the assessee has sought an opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). Further a perusal of the impugned order at para 5, it is also clear that the assessee was non-cooperative before the ld. CIT(A), resulting into dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A). Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence in regard to its claim before the ld. CIT(A), I am of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back on this issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication the issue afresh. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back on this issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose off the above issue of the assessee on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), failing which the ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available