Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) in limine for being barred by limitation. The assessee claimed non-compliance with notices was due to a change in management and new email IDs, leading to a lack of awareness of proceedings. The original assessment was made ex-parte under Section 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the 'reasonable cause' stated by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned on account of a change in management and new email IDs leading to non-receipt of notices? Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal?
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 144B, 69C, 250, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144 r.w.s144B of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is exparte and appeal has been dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. He submitted that even the proceedings before the ld. Assessing Officer is also exparte. Reason for non-appearance before the lower authorities was on account of the assessee being taken over by M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited as a going concern and the new email ids were used and therefore notices issued on the old e-mail id could not be accessed. He further submitted that the assessee has raised grounds challenging the reopening of assessment proceedings and the validity of notice u/s.148 of the Act.
On the other hand, ld. Department submitted that the matter needs to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of all the issues.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and Nil income declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 furnished on 27.11.2014. Based on the information about alleged bogus purchases of Rs.2,54,76,525/- from Manik Genetics (P) Ltd. assessee was issued notice u/s.148 of the Act but there was no compliance. Again in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022 notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Still there was no compliance and ld. Assessing Officer concluded the re- assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act vide order dated 11.05.2023 making addition u/s.69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure at Rs.2,54,76,525/- and assessed the income accordingly.
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the same was barred by limitation as there was delay of approximately 5 months. As per the impugned order, the assessee has not forwarded any reason for the delay.
Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the running business of the assessee was transferred on slump sale basis to M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited, registered address of the company was transferred and new email ids were used. For this reason, the assessee was not aware of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act as well as passing of the assessment order which resulted in delay in filing of the appeal. He further submitted that assessee failed to place any evidence to show that whether the running business of the assessee being transferred on slump sale basis to M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited was intimated to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under whom the assessee’s PAN was registered. In absence of any such information, notice issued u/s.148 of the Act seems to have not complied with.
However, considering the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and has dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with the issues raised in the appeal, we taking note of the reasons stated before us that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) in time, taking liberal approach and also considering that assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal belatedly, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and deem it proper to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. We therefore set aside the impugned order and restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2025.