EKTA PETROLIUM,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), VADODARA

PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 27.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was delay of 235 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay. It is submitted that the appeal papers were handed over to the consultant for necessary compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the consultant neither complied before the Ld. CIT(A) nor informed the assessee about the order 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 02.11.2017 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny for examining the cash deposits in the bank account made during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.78,79,000/- during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation regarding the source of cash deposits and he treated the cash deposits of Rs.78,79,000/- in the old denomination notes, as unexplained cash sales and accordingly made the addition. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2019 at total income of Rs.78,79,000/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in levying tax invoking section 115BBE of the Act. 3. The assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is void, illegal and without juri iction. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O when the impugned amount is already been offered to tax as sales. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made U/S 68 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.78,79,000/- 6. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 6. Ms. Hetvi Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not adjudicated by him on merits. She explained that the non-compliance was due to the fault of the counsel, for which the assessee should not suffer. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Per contra, Shri R P Meena, Ld. Sr. DR had no objection, if the matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee. 8. We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as six opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made before him on any of the occasion. The Ekta Petrolium vs. ITO Page 4 of 5

assessee has submitted that no compliance in the appeal proceeding was due to the fault of the counsel. The assessee cannot escape by merely placing the blame on the counsel. It is a settled law that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground.
When the appeal was filed by the assessee, it should have been careful enough to enquire about the status of the pending appeal before the Ld.
CIT(A). It was the duty of the assessee to watch its affairs before the CIT(A). The assessee was aware of the pending appeal, no care was exercised to enquire about the status of appeal and the assessee has only tried to shift the responsibility on its lawyer. The assessee was certainly negligent and its act was lethargic. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee regarding non-compliance before the appellate authority. We, therefore, direct the assessee to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- which should be deposited to the Prime Minister’s
PBN/*

Copies to: (1)
The appellant
(2)
The respondent

(3)
The PCIT

(4)
The CIT(A)

(5)
Departmental Representative

(6)
Guard File
By orderE COPY