Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2014-15 is before the tribunal. The assessee claims illness prevented them from providing evidence and seeks proper opportunity. The AO made additions under Section 69 and for income from House Property.
Held
The tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal and condoned it due to the assessee's illness. It observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) verified the investment source provided by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without granting proper opportunity, and whether the AO's assessment order requires interference, especially when the source of investment was not verified.
Sections Cited
250, 69, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 04.08.2023for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in finalizing the appeal without extending the proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessment be quashed. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessee was critically ill during the period and was hospitalized. The assessee was not able to produce the evidence as called for The heaven would not have fallen if some period was given to assessee to produce the evidence. The addition is not justified. It be quashed and set aside 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and if proper opportunity would have been given considering the illness of the assessee the evidence would have been produced to show that the investment was made by wife of the assessee in the interest of justice the Remand Report be called from the A O so that the assessee and his wife would be able to produce the necessary evidence 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment is illegal and without jurisdiction It be quashed 5) The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of final hearing.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. The hearing was scheduled on following dates, but none appeared on behalf of assessee : “28.10.2024, 21.11.2024, 13.01.2025, 05.03.2025, 24.04.2025.” Submission of ld.DR :
3. Ld.DR for the Revenue supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. There is a delay of 270 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an Affidavit stating that Assessee was [A] hospitalized during the period. There was sufficient reason for delay, hence we condone the delay.
4.1 It is noted that in the statement of facts, assessee has submitted as under: “The assessee was critically ill and was also hospitalized. The request of the assessee through his representative was not accepted when the request was made to ITO give some time to collect the required evidence for submission. The request was rejected and show cause notice dt 10 November 2016 was issued The show cause notice dt 10 November 2016 also did not provide any sufficient time and passed the assessment order dt 24.11.2016 that is within 14 days of the service of show cause notice on the pretext that the case was time barring 7) The investment for the purchase of property was made by Mrs Harsha Khushal Khinvsara holder of PAN BKSP K6347K and the investment was made through her Bank Ac No 15150100007550 maintained with Bank of Baroda Gultekadi Branch Pune The information could not be submitted in view of serious illness of the assessee. This information was available through AIR concerning bank transactions in the name Mrs Harsha Khushal Khinvasara as no notice was served on her u/s. 133(6) of the Act.” 4.2 It is noted that Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2014-15 on 27.03.2015. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The Authorised Representative Mr.Dhobale appeared before the Assessing Officer(AO). The AO made an addition of Rs.1,06,30,000/- u/s.69 of the Act and also added Rs.60,000/- under the Head – Income from House Property. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).
4.3 Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as no submission was made before ld.CIT(A), even after serving five notices. However, ld.CIT(A) held in para 6.4 and 6.5 as under : “6.4 From the conduct of the appellant as per the facts noted above, it is clear that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal. However in this regard various Tribunals have held that once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), it becomes obligatory on his part to dispose of the same on merit and it is not open for him to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the same by the appellant. This is fortified by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). 6.5 In my considered view, the findings of the AO in the assessment order are self-speaking and do not require any interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.” 4.4 Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.
4.5 We have already mentioned that no one had appeared before us also. However, it is noted that Assessee claimed in the Written Statement filed before the ld.CIT(A) that the source of investment in property was made by Mrs.Harasha Khushal Khinvsara through her Bank Account No.15150100007550 maintained with Bank of Baroda Gultekadi Br Pune. Neither ld.CIT(A) nor the Assessing Office has verified this fact, from the Bank Statement. It is also noted that assessee has submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that due to [A] his illness, assessee could not file details before the Assessing Officer.
4.6 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer to Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary details. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.