Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 173 days due to financial crisis, partner disputes, and lack of IT knowledge, preventing timely filing and participation. The assessment was reopened u/s.147, resulting in an ex-parte order adding Rs.1,64,00,000/- u/s.69.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to financial crisis and lack of partner representation, and if the matter should be restored for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
147, 69, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta
Year : 2018-19 Takshashila Dhoraji The Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Infrastructure, Income Tax, v/s. Takshashila House, Near Circle 2(1)(1), Krishna Baug Cross Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Maninagar, Ahmedabad – 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AAGFT 6032 P (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul K Patel, AR Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Garg, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18 /09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 08/04/2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-2019.
The appeal of the assessee is time-barred by 173 days. An affidavit of Shri Rajeshkumar Keshavlal Gondaliya, partner of the assessee-firm has been Takshashila Dhoraji Infrastructure vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 placed on record, wherein, it has been deposed that due to financial crisis in the firm, the disputes between the partners had ensued, because of which, the return of income could not be filed and even self assessment tax was also not paid. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. However, due to the aforesaid reasons, there was no participation by the partners in the assessment proceedings resulting into the passing of ex-parte assessment order, making the impugned addition of Rs.1,64,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act. Thereafter, with great difficulty, the partners arranged the finances and the tax of Rs.10,01,420/- was paid and the appeal to the Income Tax Commissioner (Appeals) was filed. However, the login details, which were registered on the portal, belonged to one of the partners and the said partner not being conversant with the Income-tax matters, was not able to login the portal. Further, the email address mentioned in the appeal Form No.35, was of the then Accountant of the firm who had already left the job due to the dispute between the partners and non-payment of salary to him. That, even, the partners did not know about the passing of the impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A). That it was only in the month of October-2024 that the partners received communication for recovery of outstanding demand and thereafter the assessee/partners contacted Chartered Accountant (CA) who downloaded the order from the portal and immediately the present appeal was filed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the firm did not work at all and the same was under sever financial crisis and, therefore, because of the aforesaid reasons, the partners could not represent in the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been further explained by him that even the email address given in appeal Form No.35 was that of the Accountant, who had already left the job. The Ld. Counsel further inviting our attention to the impugned order, submitted that the assessee has a fair Takshashila Dhoraji Infrastructure vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 case on merits. That the AO for want of representation from the assessee, has added the entire turnover/sales of the assessee. He, while bringing our attention to the copy of the Profit & Loss Account, has submitted that the said sales have already been taken into account and the assessee has already paid all the due taxes. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for re-consideration of the issue. He has submitted that since the assessee has a fair case on merits, therefore, in the interests of justice, the assessee may be given an opportunity to present its case.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions. It appears that the assessee has a fair case on merits as the AO has added the entire sales of the assessee instead of profit elements involved in the same. In our view, the interests of justice will be well-served, if the assessee is given an opportunity to present its case before the AO. However, we deem it fit to burden the assessee with a reasonable costs of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned subject to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- by the assessee to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Further, considering the rival submissions, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue, however, subject to furnishing of evidence by the assessee of the deposit of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. The AO will pass the fresh assessment order after giving opportunity Takshashila Dhoraji Infrastructure vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 to the assessee to present its case and thereafter to pass the assessment order afresh by way of a speaking order and in accordance with law.