Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual operating M/s Astha Nirman, engaged in the supply of stonechips, was alleged to have entered into bogus purchase transactions. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 following the assessee's non-compliance with a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). The appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was filed with a 47-day delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 47-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, and upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is instructed to be diligent.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee, who failed to represent himself before the CIT(A) regarding alleged bogus purchase transactions, should be granted an additional opportunity for a fair hearing on the merits of the case, in adherence to natural justice principles.
Sections Cited
250, 148A(b), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (in short “CIT(A) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 14.08.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19.
None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT appeared on behalf of the revenue.
Tara Pada Kundu AY: 2018-19 3. Registry has apprised that the appeal of the assessee is time barred by 47 days and an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been placed on record. After considering the averments made in the said affidavit, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal after hearing the Ld. DR.
We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR. A perusal of the facts in the present case as observed by the Ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee is an individual and engaged in business of 'supply of stonechips' in the name & style of M/s Astha Nirman. As per the information available with the department, the assessee had entered into bogus purchase transactions, during the year under consideration. Moreover, on perusal of record, it was noticed that the assessee had not truly and correctly declared the quantum of transactions done during the year under consideration in question and also not complied to show-cause notice u/s .148A(b) of the Act dated 12/03/2022. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2022. Details of opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A) which is available at page 4 of the appellate order. We also note that page 33 of the appellate order shows that there is no representation before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee despite being provided with sufficient opportunities of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) did not present itself in the appellate proceedings, keeping this in mind and also treating this attitude against the principles of natural justice, we are of the view, however, that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity. This being so, the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to be diligent before the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of this appeal.