Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about a deposit of Rs. 14,04,000/- in the assessee's bank account. The AO issued notices, but received no response, and proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the orders passed by both the lower authorities were ex-parte and decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment completed without proper service of notice violated principles of natural justice and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
133(6), 69A, 144, 115BBE, 270A, 271AAC, 271F, 272A(1)(d), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. The Income Tax Officer – 5(5) Sumerganj Dharauli Ram Barabanki - 2 Sanehi Ghat Barabanki (U.P) TAN/PAN:AJNPJ8871G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 21.03.2025, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi for Assessment Years 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. The Income Tax Department was in possession of the information that the assessee had deposited Rs.14,04,000/- in his bank account No.38840400000015 maintained with the Bank of Baroda, Bhitaria, Barabanki during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish details and documentary evidences regarding the credit entries in his bank account and other business activities. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to the notices issued by the AO. The AO, therefore, issued notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to the Branch Manager, Bank of Baorda, Bhitana Branch, Barabanki and obtained all necessary documents along with bank statement relating to the bank accounts of the assessee. From the reply received from the Bank of Baroda, the AO noticed that the assessee was a Business Correspondent of Bank of Baroda and maintained a Saving Bank Account No.38840100000106 in which an amount of Rs.1,80,325/- received by the assessee as remuneration, during the year under consideration, was credited. The AO added Rs.1,80,325/- to the income of the assessee. The AO also added an amount of Rs.579/- to the income of the assessee being bank interest credited in his S.B. account during the year under consideration. The AO held that out of the total deposits of Rs.8,03,328/- in his bank account during the year under consideration, Rs.4,78,003/- remained unexplained, which was also added to the income of the assessee as unexplained income, under section 69A of the Act. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,58,910/-.
3. The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271AAC, 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately.
Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, by raising the following grounds of appeal:
The learned AO erred in law and in fact in completing the assessment ex parte u/s 144 of the Act without proper service of notice u/s 142(1). The appellant was unaware of the notice, as no delivery was made physically OR through effective communication. Hence, the principles of natural justice stand violated.
2. Erroneous Addition u/s 69A of Rs.4,78,003/-.
Non-application of Mind - Mismatch Between Reason to Believe and Actual Addition. 4. Incorrect Invocation of Section 115BBE. 5. Failure to Consider Reconciliation and Evidence on Record. 6. Threshold Exemption Ignored for Commission and Interest Income.
7. CIT(A) erred in law and fact by failing to 7 appreciate the contractual relationship, reconciliation of accounts, and supporting evidence furnished.
None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application moved in this regard. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.
During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 15.07.2023, which was received by the Registry of this Office on 11.07.2025, for condonation of delay, stating therein that the assessee being a resident of rural area had limited access and technical knowledge of online transactions and, therefore, the assessee was not aware of the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority uploaded on the online portal of the Department. However, when the assessee came to know about passing of the order by the Ld. First Appellate Authority while checking the email, he immediately contacted the local professional for assistance in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It has been prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was beyond the control of the assessee, which may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.
The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned.
In view of the prayer made by the Assessee and no objection by the Ld. Sr. D.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.
Since the order passed by the AO was under section 144 of the Act and the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi had dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, the Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.
I have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the orders passed by both the authorities are ex-parte qua the assessee. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, I set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi and restore this file to the Office of the Assessing Officer with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the Assessing Officer in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the Assessing Officer would be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/10/2025.