Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions of ₹40.85 lakhs for accommodation entries and ₹3.47 crores for unexplained cash credits under Section 69A and Section 68, respectively, to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in-limine, refusing to condone a 44-day delay in filing and declining to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, thereby confirming the AO's order.
Held
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not provide specific reasons for refusing to condone the 44-day delay, especially given the substantial additions of approximately ₹3.90 crores. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to first consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay and then to adjudicate the appeal on its merits, including the admissibility of additional evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and refusing to admit additional evidence; and the validity of additions for accommodation entries and unexplained cash credits.
Sections Cited
147, 68, 69A, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271(1)(c), Rule 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shaunak Shailesh Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14, Nikanth Bunglows, Ward-5(3)(5, In the lane of HDFC Bank, Ahmedabad Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No.AHBPS7909L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR 16.12.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 08.01.2025 O R D E R
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 30.12.2023 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in dismissing the appeal in-limine on the technical ground of delay without adjudicating the merits of the case.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not entertaining the additional evidences placed before him under Rule 46A(1).
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of Id. AO of reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and in not permissible either in law or on facts.
Shaunak Shailesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the ex-parte order passed by the learned AO which was passed without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 40,85,000/- as accommodation entries.
6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of cash deposits of Rs. 3,47,28,400/- in bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
Alternatively and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount.
Alternatively and without prejudice, the benefit of telescoping may kindly be granted.
Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal
at the time of or before the hearing of appeal.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of ₹1,88,000/-. However, the assessing officer, on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing noted that the assessee had taken accommodation entry to the tune of ₹40,85,000/- from Radhe Corporation. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer added the aforesaid amount of ₹40,85,000/- on account of bogus transaction availed by the 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was a delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay stating that at the time of receipt of order, he was travelling and hence could not pass the assessment order to his Chartered Accountant. Subsequently, the CA of the assessee enquired into the status of the order from the assessee and thereafter, the assessee sent the assessment order to the CA for taking necessary action. Immediately, the CA of the assessee contacted another Advocate, who filed the appeal of the assessee before Ld. CIT(Appeals). Further, the assessee also filed application under Rule 46A seeking to admit certain additional evidence in support of his case and to prove the source of deposits in his bank account. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee on the ground that the application was generic in nature and was a lame excuse cited by the assessee. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeals) also did not admit additional evidence sought to be filed by the assessee under Rule 46A on the ground that the assessee had been given adequate opportunity at assessment stage, but the assessee failed to avail these opportunities for reasons best known to the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the assessing officer, refusing to condone the delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him.
5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going to the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), Shaunak Shailesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4– we observe that no specific reasons have been given by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in refusing to condone the delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him, despite the fact that substantial additions to the tune of approximately 3.90 crores were made in the hands of the assessee by the assessing officer. The assessee had also sought to file additional details in support of its case, which were again refused to be admitted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) to consider the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing of appeal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after considering the merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 08/01/2025
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 08/01/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. 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,