Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal, stemming from an assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. Section 144 with additions of Rs. 1,30,14,669/-, was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 226-day delay in filing. The assessee provided reasons for the delay, including notices being sent to cooperative auditors and lack of technical expertise for the new faceless system, but the CIT(A) was not satisfied.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 226-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons (notices sent to auditors, lack of technical expertise with the faceless system) to be a reasonable cause. The matter concerning the merits of the additions is remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation without condoning the 226-day delay, and whether the additions made under Section 147 r.w.s. Section 144 (treating deposits as unexplained income/investment) were justified.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 148, 144B, 151A, 69A, 115BBE, 69, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessee by : None Revenue by : M/s. Shilpa N.C., Additional-CIT Date of hearing : 21.01.2025 Date of : 10.02.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after also called ‘the Act’) which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 dated 24.03.2023.
The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. C.I.T. (Appeals). NFAC, Delhi has erred in non-condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) even though sufficient cause was demonstrated beyond doubt.
2. Whether CIT (A), NFAC is correct in dismissing the case limine without going into the merits
The impugned notice under section 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer, which is outside the faceless mechanism as provided under the provisions of Section 144(B) read with Section 151A, as the notice is without jurisdiction and the consequential order is bad in law.
4. Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit of Rs 86,14,669 as unexplained money u/s 69 A r.w.s 115BBE when the assessee is a co op society and the source can be explained.
Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit/ time deposit of Rs 44,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE when the source can be explained.
Whether AO is correct in passing order merely on the availability of information with department which does not confirm the actual facts.
Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit of Rs 86,14,669 as unexplained money u/s69 A r.w.s 115BBE when the actual deposit are only of Rs 8,00,000/- 8. Whether AO is correct in treating the cash deposit of Rs 86,14,669 as unexplained money u/s69 A r.w.s 115BBE only by placing reliance on the wrong information available with officer but not confirmed by assessee nor any documentary evidence.
The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal 10. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed.
3. When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however written submission have been filed. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the able assistance of ld. DR and available record. I note that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of 226 days delay in filing the appeal. Assessee gave reasons for delay of appeal but ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied and dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation.
Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the orders of lower authorities.
5. I have heard ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal by not condoning the delay of 226 days. The assessee is a co-operative society and during the course of scrutiny A proceedings did not make proper compliance as a result ld. AO framed best judgement u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2023 making additions of Rs. 1,30,14,669/- Against the said addition assessee appealed to ld. CIT(A) but the same was delayed by 226 days. The delay was not condoned by CIT(A) and appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Before me the assessee has filed an affidavit 6. stating the reason which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A) within prescribed time limit and the main reason was that the notices were sent on the email Id of the co-operative auditors and the assessee society was under bonafide belief that the auditor would do the needful or inform the office bearers of the society but since there was no communication, the assessee society got informed about passing of order at a later date which has resulted in the said delay.
7. I find that the assessee society is not equipped with technical expertise of handling new faceless system of the proceedings. As a result delay occured in filing the appeal. Considering this as a reasonable clause, I condone the delay of 226 days in filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue on merits raised by the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and to pass a speaking order. The Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and should not seek adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable clause. Order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed for stastical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of February, 2025.