Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny, but he failed to comply with notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1). The Assessing Officer subsequently made additions for unexplained cash, unsecured loans, agricultural income, and investments, assessing income under Section 143(3). The assessee's appeal to the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to continued non-compliance.
Held
The ITAT condoned the 380-day delay in filing the appeal. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)' ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity subject to strict cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the significant delay in filing the appeal to the ITAT should be condoned, and whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity, particularly after the Assessing Officer made substantial additions to income due to non-compliance.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rakesh Mishra
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18th January, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by 380 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition saying that due to unawareness of the web portal of the Income Tax Department, he was not aware of 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 380 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 380 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 13.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,96,870/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 and duly served on the assessee. Later notices under section 142(1) were issued on different dates along with questionnaire and duly served upon the assessee through e-proceedings, but the assessee did not comply with the notices. From the record, it was noticed that the assessee deposited cash in the Bank account of Allahabad Bank, Gar (A.Y. 2017-2018) Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh Bhawanipur Branch amounting to Rs.9,90,500/-, which was treated by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained money as the assessee did not produce any evidence and comply with the notices issued. The assessee has shown unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.1,32,000/-. The assessee was asked to produce the details of unsecured loan vide notice dated 13.11.2019, but the assessee did not comply. The ld. Assessing Officer treated it as bogus liability and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee has shown agricultural income relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 amounting to Rs.5,62,740/-. As the assessee did not furnish anything, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.5,62,740/- as undisclosed income from other sources and added to the total income of the assessee. From the balance-sheet it was noticed that the total amount of investment of the assessee was Rs.36,51,052/- and there was an increase in investment amounting to Rs.38,25,024/- during the FY 2016-17 as per figure disclosed by the assessee. As the assessee failed to furnish anything in support of his claim, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the amount as undisclosed and added to the total income of the assessee. Finally, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed income of the assessee at Rs.60,07,130/- under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Being not satisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld.
(A.Y. 2017-2018) Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 18th January, 2024.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
We have heard both the sides. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.60,07,130/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the CIT(Appeals).
We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one