Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-appearance and failure to submit documents. The CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte. The assessee claims to be a senior citizen with health issues.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present all details and documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, and if a fresh opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 37, 40(A)(3), 270A, 234, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Chandanben Gaurishankar Joshi, Income Tax Officer, Vs. A/102, 10th Floor, Ward-3(3)(1), Royal Orchid, Ahmedabad. Corporate Road, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. [PAN :AIDPJ3562 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR Respondent by: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr DR Date of Hearing 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
1. This is in reference to the order passed u/s 250 by CIT(A), wherein the learned CIT has passed on the grounds that the appellant failed to appear before the CIT(A) and failed to submit the relevant documents, and that the CIT(A) is restricted to the disposals of the appeal based Chandanben G Joshi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– on the merits available in the record. Hence the order was passed accordingly. The appellant was absent in hearing as well as unable to respond to any communication due to age-related limitations. The appellant is a senior citizen and her health is not well. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience my absence may have caused to the proceedings. I assure you that I will make every effort to attend future hearings through representative as scheduled.
2. The Assessing officer has made addition on account of business expenditure of Rs. 20,00,000 as per section 37: The Ld. AO has also erred and in law and on facts in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.20,00,000/- in total despite the fact that such expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively to earn the remuneration from the partnership firm in which assessee is a working partner.
3. The Assessing officer has made addition on account of business expenditure incurred in cash as per section 40(A)(3): The Ld AO has erred and in law and on facts in disallowing the business expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 merely on the basis that the expenditure has been incurred in cash neglecting all the conditions of the said section being invoked. The Ld AO has not at all bothered to check the limits specified in the said section in the case of assessee before making such an arbitrary addition. 3.
4. Section 270A-Levy of penalty for Misrepresented or underreported income. The L.d. AO has initiated penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of income despite the fact that the disallowances are made out of the genuine business expenditure of the assessee that were required to be incurred to can the remuneration income reported by the assessee. The assessee has also during the proceedings furnished all the ledger accounts and the required bills for the business expenses. Therefore the assessee has made true and fair disclosures for every issue covered, it cannot be concluded that the assessee has under reported the income. Hence the case of assessee does not attract any penal provisions under the IT Act. 4.
5. Section 234- Charging of interest on tax levied: The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234 of the IT Act despite the fact that the assessee has duly paid the required amount of tax before filing the return of its income and there remains no outstanding amount of tax to be paid.
Chandanben G Joshi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– 5.
Rule 46A: Additional evidences: The assessee requests your good-self to allow production and submission of additional evidences during the course of appellate proceedings which, for the one reason or the other, the assessee is not able to produce/submit during the course of assessment proceedings 6.
Modification in Grounds of appeal: The assessee reserves his right to add, delete, edit, manipulate, modify, rectify or otherwise change any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.
On going through the record, we find that the notices of hearing u/s.250 were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) on 05.11.2021, 02.12.2021, 03.08.2022, 24.08.2022, & 07.05.2024, requesting the assessee to submit certain details/clarification/ explanation to substantiate its claim. Since the assessee remained non-compliant with the notices issued and failed to submit the relevant documents before the Ld.CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Since the primary adjudication of ground of appeal has not been taken by Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for conducting assessment de-novo and a cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the assessee, the amount should be deposited into “Prime Minister Relief Fund” and the receipt shall be submitted before the JAO, who shall take it on record before passing the order giving effect to the order of the ITAT. The assessee shall submit all the relevant documents and comply with the notices issued by the Revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 04.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 04.07.2025 MV देश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy