Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed before the CIT(A) with a delay of 147 days, which was dismissed in limine. The assessee had not filed their return of income, and the case was reopened based on NMS and ITS data indicating significant cash deposits and interest income. The assessment was completed ex-parte as the assessee failed to provide details.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days, finding that non-representation due to unforeseen circumstances should not be detrimental. The Tribunal remitted the issues on merit to the CIT(A) for adjudication, stating that this would meet the ends of justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the merits of the case should be remitted to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 139(1), 148, 142(1), 69A, 271(1)(c)
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 Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 15.10.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant case the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 147 days and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay occurred before him. From perusal of the impugned, order, we notice that the reason stated by the assessee was that the consultant’s parents were critical and hospitalized and therefore the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee could not make the requisite submissions even before the ld. Assessing Officer which led to passing of the order exparte u/s.144 of the Act. Therefore, a prayer is made to condone the delay.
After hearing both the sides and the facts which led to delay in presenting the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) we are of the view that non-representation by the Authorized Representative before the authorities should not be detrimental to the assessee. A liberal and pragmatic approach needs to be adopted in the instant case and in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC and the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 309 where delay of 1876 days was condoned, we therefore condone the delay of 147 days and proceed for adjudication of the appeal.
Coming to the merits of the case, we notice that the assessee trust has not filed the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Based on the information available with NMS and ITS data that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.2.18 crore and interest income of Rs.45,165/-, the assessee’s case was reopened by way of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. As the assessee had failed to file return of income and other details as called for by the ld. AO in compliance to notices issues u/s.148/142(1) of the Act, ld. AO proceeded with the assessment on an ex-parte basis, and vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.03.2022 treating the cash deposit of Rs.2.18 crore as unexplained money u/s.69A, assessed its income at Rs.2,18,46,990/-. Ld. AO while framing the assessment also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
During the course of present hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to the reasons beyond control of the assessee, its case was not represented before the lower authorities which led to passing of the orders exparte against the assessee. Given an opportunity, the assessee is now in a position to represent its case effectively before the authorities by producing cogent evidences. Therefore, a prayer is made to remit the issue on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A). Ld. Departmental Representative did not object for remission of the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A).
Having heard both the sides and perusing the record placed before us and the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the assessee during the course of present hearing, we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would meet adequately if the issues on merit are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide proper email id and phone number to the department for receiving notices through ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required, failing which the ld. ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 06th day of May, 2025.