Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agricultural fresh fruit banana trader, filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 and an ex-parte appellate order under Section 250, with a delay of 577 days. The assessment included an addition of Rs. 10,06,000 for unexplained cash deposit, made after the assessee failed to file a return or respond to a notice under Section 142(1).
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, accepting the assessee's explanation of unfamiliarity with the e-portal and negligence by the tax consultant as 'reasonable cause'. It set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, instructing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consideration of a remand report if needed.
Key Issues
1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. Whether the ex-parte assessment under Section 144 and ex-parte appeal order under Section 250 should be sustained without providing the assessee a proper hearing.
Sections Cited
144, 250, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 11.08.2023 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 17.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act.
Registry has informed that the instant appeal is time barred by limitation by 577 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows :
“I am an agricultural fresh fruit banana trader and broker and was not acquainted with income tax e-portal and also was not aware with the compliances aspect and my tax consultant to whom the work of appeal was given, failed to intimate me about the hearing notices and orders passed u/s 250. The email address was also not belonging to me and hence I did come to know about the exparte Order of the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax. The Hon'ble CIT Appeal Order was not served on me by post hence unawareness.
This resulted a delay of 598 days in filling the appeal before ITAT. I pray before this Hon'ble bench to condone the delay in filling the appeal and to admit the appeal.”
After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the condonation application by the assessee, I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, I condone the delay of 577 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382).
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for remitting the issues to the file of lower authorities as both the assessment order as well as order of First Appellate Authority are exparte.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Assessee is an individual and has been assessed u/s.144 of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 and addition for unexplained cash deposit at Rs.10,06,000/- has been made. Assessee is a non-filer and even did not file the return in compliance to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Assessee has notn appeared before the Assessing Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. Under these given facts and circumstances and Bhagavan Devaram Patil there being no details available on record which could prima-facie indicate that assessee has sufficient details to explain the source of cash deposit, I in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo 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. Ld.CIT(A) may call for remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, if necessary, and after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order 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. Impugned order is set aside and the effective 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 31st day of July, 2025.