Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, which was passed without considering the assessee's request for an adjournment to opt for the Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. There was an 84-day delay in filing the appeal to the Tribunal, attributed to the CIT(A)'s order being discovered late in junk mail by the tax consultant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 84-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons. It ruled that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without providing due opportunity or considering the adjournment request, violating natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing proper hearing.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of 84-day delay in filing appeal. 2. Validity of CIT(A)'s ex-parte order passed without considering request for adjournment to opt for DTVSVS 2024. 3. Adherence to principles of natural justice and proper estimation of income.
Sections Cited
282, 127, 148, 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kiran Kumar Bussa Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward – 2 PAN:AJTPB5696F Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC for the A.Y.2016-17.
There is a delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit.
The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that in response to the notice of hearing dated 30/09/2024, the assessee sent a reply and requested for adjournment of the hearing as the assessee desired to opt for Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. The assessee thereafter was busy in arranging the funds to meet the tax demand of Rs.12.00 crores to be paid within 15 days from the issuance of Form-II by the designated authority under Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2024. However, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide the impugned order dated 29/10/2024 without considering the request of the assessee for adjournment of the hearing. Since the assessee could not mobilize the required funds, therefore, consulted his Tax Consultant for pursuing the appeal before the learned CIT (A). However, when it was verified by the Tax Consultant, the impugned order was already passed by the learned CIT (A) after rejecting the request of the adjournment of the assessee and therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation as the assessee was not aware about the impugned order till it was verified from the record by the Tax Consultant. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the appeal of the assessee may be admitted for adjudication on merits.
On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee has not explained sufficient reasons to justify the Page 2 of 7 delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal therefore, he has vehemently objected to the condonation of the delay.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay of 84 days in filing the appeal in para 2 to 5 of the affidavit as under:
We note that in response to the notice dated 30/09/2024, the assessee filed a letter requesting the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the assessee contemplates to settle the disputes under the Direct Tax VSVS 2024. A copy of the reply filed by the assessee is placed at page No.11 of the paper book whereby the assessee has uploaded the reply on 4/10/2024 for requesting the adjournment of the hearing as the assessee wanted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax VSVS 2024. It is manifest from the impugned order that the learned CIT (A) has passed the order on 29/10/2024 without considering the request of the assessee for adjournment of the hearing thereby upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer @ 12% of the total deposits in the bank account.
Page 4 of 7 The Assessing Officer has applied the commission @ 12% on the business of the assessee dealing in Farm Products and earning the commission income. Thus, it is clear that the assessee was under the impression that the learned CIT (A) will give reasonable time to the assessee for opting Direct Tax Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, however, the impugned order was passed without granting the time to the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit are sufficient for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and therefore, we condone the delay of 84 days in filing the present appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
At the time of hearing the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant record as well as submissions. Since the assessee requested for adjournment of the hearing and therefore, the relevant record as well as the submissions has not been considered by the learned CIT (A) while passing the impugned order.
The learned DR has relied upon the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) and submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to file the supporting evidence but the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim of declaring the commission income at Rs.1,25,950/- as against the commission income estimated by the Assessing Officer at Rs.59,56,380/-.
We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has estimated the commission income of the assessee by adopting net profit @12% which is without any basis and further the same is on the higher side and arbitrary. The Assessing Officer has not given any basis for estimation of the commission income @ 12% as against the income declared by the assessee at Rs.1,25,950/-. Further, the entire deposits in the bank account of the assessee are treated by the Assessing Officer as business
Page 6 of 7 income. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, when the learned CIT (A) has passed the ex-parte order, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.