CHEDI SONKAR,MEDINIPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD - 39(1), MIDNAPUR, MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1314/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 February 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). An opportunity was granted to the assessee to present his case before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an illiterate person with limited computer knowledge, failed to file his return of income and respond to notices from the AO for AY 2018-19. This led to ex-parte additions and dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) for want of prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case before the AO, despite previous non-compliance due to illiteracy and lack of computer knowledge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

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 16.09.2023 for AY 2018-19.

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chedi Sonkar 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal, and the assessee has filed a condonation petition by explaining the cause of delay. We have gone through the petition of condonation and find that the assessee has taken ground that the assessee is an illiterate person having no knowledge about the computer system, when in the first week of December department started pressing to pay the demand, then on enquiry about the passing of appeal. His submission is that delay was not intentional rather Bonafide. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. On perusal of the above condonation petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the assessee is a Kachcha Arahtia of fruits, and earns commission income, and assessee did not file his return of income for AY 2018-19. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee did not give any reply before the AO, as a result of which, the addition of Rs. 1,44,35,100/- on account of unexplained cash credit and Rs. 49,34,910/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act was made.

4.

Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee by filing paper books has submitted that the assessee should have given an opportunity to place his case before the AO as the order passed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee is an illiterate person and he was completely unaware with the computer system and that’s why he could not comply the statutory notices. The Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has sufficient documentary evidences to substantiate his case. Hence, for the interest of justice an opportunity should be given to him place his case before the AO.

6.

The Ld. D.R supports the impugned order.

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chedi Sonkar 7. Upon hearing the submission of the Counsels of the respective parties, we have perused the order of Ld. CIT(A) and AO and there is no dispute that the order passed by the AO in absence of assessee. Order of both lower authorities clearly reveals that that the assessee did neither appear before the A.O. nor submit any response before the Ld. CIT(A). The prayer of the ld. Counsel of the assessee is that the assessee has to be given an opportunity to place his case before the AO. He has filed a paper book that includes balance sheet, profit and loss account, trade license and statement of account of State Bank of India for the period of 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.

8.

Going over the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and AO, and for the interest of justice we are inclined to afford an opportunity to the assessee to place his case before the AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby restored in the case file of AO. The Order passed by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) are hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2025

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →