Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Krishna Filling Station, did not file an income tax return for AY 2017-18. Information revealed a substantial cash deposit of Rs. 5,29,35,400/- during the demonetization period, leading the AO to reopen the assessment and complete it ex-parte under Sections 147, 144, and 144B as the assessee failed to respond to various notices. The assessee's appeal to CIT(A) was delayed by 67 days, and despite multiple notices, no condonation petition or appearance was made, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limine.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that notices from the CIT(A) were not properly served, preventing them from explaining the delay or merits. Concluding that it was a fit case to grant another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a condonation of delay application, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the assessee's claim of non-service of notices for condonation of delay and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 144B, 249(2), 249(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
1 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.52/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Krishna Filling Station, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 008. vs. Ward–2, Karimnagar. PAN AAKFK6223D PIN – 505 001. Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri T. Chaitanya, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 30.12.2024, of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018.
Brief facts of the case are that, the did not file his return of income for the year under consideration. The Department had information from the AIMS module of ITBA 2 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 that the assessee had deposited substantial cash in its current bank account of Rs.5,29,35,400/- during demonetization period for the financial year 2016-2017 relevant to assessment year 2017-2018. Considering all the aspects, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/sec.147 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authority and accordingly, a notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued and served upon the assessee at his registered email ID as well as his e-filing account on income tax e-filing portal. However, the assessee did not file his reply or return of income in response to notice u/sec.148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also issued statutory notice u/sec.142(1) of the Act dated 22.12.2021 and 14.02.2022 calling the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposit into the bank a/c. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued u/sec.142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.144 of the Act calling the assessee to show cause as to why the 3 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 assessment should not be completed u/sec.144 of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,29,35,400/- vide order dated 28.03.2022 u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “ the Act”].
On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) with a delay of 67 days and that the assessee had not filed any affidavit explaining the reasons for delay and condonation of the same. The learned CIT(A) has issued various notices u/sec.250 of the Act dated 18.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 14.02.2024, 01.03.2024 and 10.12.2024, but, the assessee has not filed any request or reason for condonation of delay. In view of non- submission of any explanation for the delay in filing appeal, the learned CIT(A) noted that it is not a technical defect which cannot be ignored in view of the specific provision of Section 249(2)/249(3) and therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.
4 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
Shri T. Chaitanya, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, although, the assessee did not file a petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) ought to have check that notices issued by him duly served upon the assessee and thereafter provide ample opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He submitted that, the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) as the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were not served on the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not substantiate it’s case either for delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) or on merits of deposit of amount in his current account with the bank. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee pleaded that one more opportunity may please be provided to the assessee to substantiate it’s case before the learned CIT(A) in the interest of justice, otherwise, the assessee will be put to irreparable hardship.
5 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 6. Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR for the Revenue, although, strongly relied on the orders of the authorities below, however, did not object to the request of the assessee to substantiate it’s case before the learned CIT(A) by remitting the matter back to his file.
We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte vide order dated 28.03.2022 u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act as the assessee neither appeared nor filed relevant details in support of it’s case. Before the learned CIT(A), although, there was a delay of 67 days in filing the appeal, but, the assessee has not filed any petition requesting for condonation of delay. Further, the assessee had also not appeared before the First Appellate Authority even though the case was posted for hearing on various dates as observed by the learned CIT(A) in para-2.1 of his order. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without condoning the delay in filing 6 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 of the appeal for want of petition by the assessee. Now the assessee is before us and submitted that by an inadvertent error the assessee could not file petition for condonation of delay before the learned CIT(A). Further, the assessee also could not appear before the learned CIT(A) because the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) was not served on the assessee. Therefore, he submitted that, if given one more opportunity to go before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee will file relevant petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for non-filing of the appeal on or before the due date. No doubt, the assessee has not filed petition requesting for condonation of delay. However, the case of the assessee is that notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were not duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee is not aware of the proceedings taken-up by the learned CIT(A), in our considered view, there is no occasion for the assessee to explain the defect in filing the appeal including delay in filing of the appeal. Before us also the assessee has not filed any petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this is a fit 7 ITA.No.52/Hyd./2025 case for providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain it’s case before the First Appellate Authority. Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of learned CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to file application for condonation of delay along with the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The learned CIT(A) is also directed to consider the case of the assessee, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.