Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2010-11, which was filed with a significant delay of 379 days. The delay was attributed to the assessee's reliance on their CA, who failed to file the appeal in time, and the assessee's lack of familiarity with online portals.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee should not suffer due to the CA's mistake and the Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal further found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper verification or discussion on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities without proper verification and opportunity of hearing are sustainable.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
( Physical Hearing ) �नधा��रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM :
Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 08.06.2023 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2010-11.
Grounds of appeal are as under:-
882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 2 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an cx-parte order without affording a proper opportunity of hearing which is against the Principles of Natural Justice and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal in limine without discussion on merits which is against the Principles of Natural Justice and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.
Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.2,30,000/- made on account of cash deposits in the bank account of the driver of the assessee which is arbitrary and unjustified.
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.46,99,267/- made on account of purchase of mutual funds which is arbitrary and unjustified.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal
before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
6. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Officer is arbitrary, opposed to the facts of the case and thus untenable.
3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 379 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee,
882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 3 making prayer for condonation of delay. The affidavit of the Assessee is as under:
882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 4 4. We have considered the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal as mentioned in the Affidavit. It is clear that the Assessee was dependent on its C.A. Rashmi Mohan for income tax matters and the Assessee’s CA failed to file appeal in time. For that mistake committed by the CA of the Assessee, the Assessee should not be made to suffer.
The ld. DR did not have any objection for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee also brought it on record that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is also an ex-parte order. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the assessee had made the investment in purchase of mutual funds after redemption of earlier mutual funds held by him and a copy of the bank statement which was available with the Assessing officer shows the redemption of mutual funds just prior to purchase of new mutual funds. As such, the assessee had sources for purchase of mutual funds out of redemption of mutual funds purchased over years. A copy of the bank statement along with mutual fund
882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 5 record is to be placed and relevant documents are also to be produced for verification, therefore, the Counsel prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the A.O. for verification of these documents and passing of an assessment order after verification.
The ld. DR had no objection to the prayer of the Assessee.
We have considered the request of the Counsel of the Assessee and the submissions made by the ld. DR before us. We find that it is an ex-parte order passed by the Assessing Officer without any verification as the Assessee could not file any document of its claim before the A.O. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the ground that no compliance was made by the Assessee. But at the same time, the ld. CIT(A) has not given any findings on the merit of the case on the basis of material available on record, therefore, in the fitness of things we are inclined to remand this case back to the A.O. for verification of the documents and passing an order afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the A.O.
882-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh, Chandigarh 6 All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31.01.2025.