Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 194 days. The case was selected for scrutiny due to a large value of imports shown in the export-import data, and a difference in import valuation was added to the assessee's total income. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to file submissions or appear.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision, directing that the assessee be given another opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) should be set aside to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
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: 2016-2017 Moloy Paul,………………………..……..…………Appellant C/o. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [PAN:ALRPP2847A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….…………...Respondent Ward-49(3), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Manicktala, Civil Centre Uttarapan Complex, DS-IV, Kolkata-700067 Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri L.N. Dash, Addl. CIT(D.R.), appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: March 12, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: May 27, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-12, Mumbai dated 13th March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17.
(A.Y. 2016-2017) Moloy Paul 2. The appeal is time barred by 194 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 4th March, 2025 saying that the assessee is 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 194 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 194 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income electronically on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,58,300/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. The reason for selection of scrutiny of this case “large value of imports shown in the export import data, whether values of exports and imports has been correctly shown in the return of income. As such statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assessee through ITBA. In response to the said notices, the assessee furnished certain details or documents in support of his return of income through e-proceeding portal. On going through the statement of the assessee in respect of import purchase along with import duty, it shows huge difference of Rs.10,42,505/- between the heads “amount in Indian rupees as per A/c based on payment of (A.Y. 2016-2017) Moloy Paul Rs.37,49,832/- and the amount in Indian rupees as on date of import of Rs.27,07,327/-. Therefore, the assessee was asked to show-cause why such difference of Rs.10,42,505/- should not be added to the total income of the assessee. Getting no satisfactory reply from the side of assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the said difference as unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,00,805/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. Addl./JCIT(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. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 13th March, 2024.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
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. Addl./JCIT(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 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Moloy Paul the total income of Rs.17,00,805/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. Addl./JCIT(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 ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more 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. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.