Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return for AY 2012-13, which was subsequently reopened under Section 148. Due to non-compliance with notices, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained deposit under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this ex-parte order due to further non-compliance, leading the assessee to appeal to the ITAT after a delay of 168 days, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to substantiate its claim, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, passed due to the assessee's non-compliance, should be set aside to grant an opportunity for a fresh hearing on the addition made under Section 68.
Sections Cited
115JB, 148, 68, 147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]
ORDER / आदेश Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 30.08.2023 for AY 2012-13.
2. It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 168 days for this the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows- Assessment Year: 2012-13 Trimline Agencies Pvt.Ltd. “1. That the appeal filed against the aggrieved assessment order was disposed off by the Hon’ble Ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide an order dated 30.08.2023, the same was served on the mail of the assessee on 30.08.2023.
That the time of filing of the appeal before the tribunal expired on 29.10.2023.
3. That I engaged the serves of Vikash Sharma, an Accountant, for the purpose of handling my accounts and my income tax matters.
That Vikash Sharma was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the accurate preparation and timely submission of my income tax returns and other income tax compliances.
That I relief on Vikash Sharma to comply all requirements and obligation related to assessment proceedings u/s 147 and appellate proceedings u/s 250 of the Act related to AY 2013-14.
6. That as I trusted Vikash Sharma he was in full control of income tax login ID and password and all compliance related matters.
That it came to my knowledge that there was negligence on the part of Vikash Sharma which led to non-compliance during appellant proceedings u/s 250 of the Act and that the dismissal of the case was not even communicated to me.
Ony recently, when the said accountant left the job and ne accountant was appointed, I cane to know that the above appeal was dismissed.
In light of above circumstances, the delay in the present case as the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee.
That the memo of appeal has been filed today in the office of the tribunal.” On perusal of the condonation petition, the reason for delay in filing the appeal seems to be genuine and bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. Keeping in view, the condonation petition as well as judicial pronouncement that the case should be decided on merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned.
Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring total income at Rs. 11,560/- and also declared deemed total income u/s 115JB at Rs. 7,989/-. The said return was duly processed and the case of the assessee was reopened, notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee. The show cause notices were also issued by giving final opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee not willing to comply with the notices, as a result of which, the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- is treated as unexplained deposit in the account of the assessee and the same is added back as undisclosed income by invoking of Section 68 of the Act.
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Trimline Agencies Pvt.Ltd. 4. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in view of the non- compliance from the side of the assessee.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal.
5. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee instead of arguing into the merit of the case has only submitted that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to place its case before the AO as the order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) were an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel submit that due to some unavoidable reason, the assessee could not be able to appear either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A).
The ld. D.R did not raise any objection though he supported the order of lower authorities.
7. Upon hearing the submission of the counsel of the respective parties, we have perused the order of AO and find that there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, as a result of which, the AO added an amount of Rs. 1,00,00000/- in the income of the assessee. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. The order passed by both the authorities are an ex-parte order. The assessee prayed before us that the assessee should have been given an opportunity to place its case before the AO as the assessee has sufficient documentary evidences to substantiate its claim. The interest of justice demands to give an opportunity to the assessee to place his case for just adjudication. The case is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh hearing after giving an opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside and the appeal of the assessee is hereby restored to the file of AO.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 10th March, 2025
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 10th March, 2025 SM, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Trimline Agencies Pvt. Ltd., 10/B, B. B. Ganguly Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700012 2. Respondent – ITO,Ward-10(2), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)