Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a 191-day delay, which was condoned by the Tribunal due to the assessee's travel abroad. The case involved reopening of assessment for AY 2012-13 based on information of bogus purchases of Rs.1,00,51,000/- from M/s. F V Enterprise and accommodation entries of Rs.39,72,000/- from M/s. Sankalp Traders and Yashasvi Enterprise, leading to additions under Section 68. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to represent the case. This was conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days for non-compliance before the CIT(A). The assessee was also directed to regularly access his email and comply with future notices.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and confirming additions related to bogus purchases and unexplained cash credit; whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the charging of interest and initiation of penalty.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 68, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 15.02.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.
2. There was a delay of 191 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation application supported with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It is submitted that the registered e-mail id. of the assessee was padmavatiglobalservices@gmail.com which was also appearing on the Income Tax Portal. However, the e-mail id. mentioned in the Form No.35 was p.b.jani01@gmail.com, which was mentioned by Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Trushar Parimalbhai Shah vs. ITO Page 2 of 5 the Consultant. It is stated that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on the e-mail id as mentioned in the Form No.35 was not received by him, as a result of which no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the final order of the Ld. CIT(A) was also sent on the same e-mail id. The assessee has further submitted that he was frequently travelling out of India from January 2024 to September 2024 and, therefore, was unable to monitor the development in respect of pending appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has filed copy of his passport in support of his frequent travels outside the country during the above-mentioned period. It is further explained that upon return to India in October 2024, the assessee became aware of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, thereafter, the present appeal was filed.
2.1 We have considered the explanation of the assessee. Considering the fact that the assessee was out of the country for considerable period of time during the period from January 2024 to September 2024, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 17.07.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,69,180/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad that the assessee was beneficiary of fake/bogus invoice issued by one M/s. F V Enterprises. In the course of assessment, the AO found that the assessee had taken three invoices totalling to Rs.1,00,51,000/- from M/s. F V Enterprise on account of purchases; in which the date of order placed, the date of delivery challan, vehicle details etc. were not mentioned. Therefore, the purchases made through these invoices were treated as bogus and not genuine by the AO. Accordingly, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Trushar Parimalbhai Shah vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 addition of Rs.1,00,51,000/- was made in respect of bogus purchases. Further, information was also received regarding accommodation entry taken by the assessee from M/s. Sankalp Traders and M/s. Yashasvi Enterprise and the total amount of Rs.39,72,000/- received from these two concerns was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 28.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.1,45,92,180/- .
Aggrieved with the order of the AO, 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.
Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: -
1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order, ex-parte.
Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.88,16,000/-on account of purchases from M.s, F.V. Enterprise.
3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.12,35,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of closing balance that it stood in the ledger Account of M/s. F.V. Enterprise.
4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in making an addition of Rs.39,72,000/- on account of alleged accommodation entries from M/s. Sankalp Traders and Yashasvi Enterprise, 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not considering materials placed on record.
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Trushar Parimalbhai Shah vs. ITO Page 4 of 5 6. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of A.O. in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D 7. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.”
Shri Mohit Balani, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. He explained that all the notices by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent on the e-mail id p.b.jani01@gmail.com as mentioned in Form No.35 which was not regularly accessed. Therefore, no compliance could be made before him. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee.
Per contra, Shri Abhijit, Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). However, he has no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. We are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee regarding non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). The notices were sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on the email id as mentioned by the assessee in the Form No.35. The Ld. CIT(A) had allowed three opportunities to the assessee but neither any compliance was made nor any adjournment was ever sought. We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the assessee which should be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Trushar Parimalbhai Shah vs. ITO Page 5 of 5 of this order. Further, since the appeal of the assessee was not decided on merits, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to represent his case, after verifying that the cost as imposed is paid by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to regularly access his e- mail account and comply to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) in the set- aside proceeding.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17th June, 2025.