Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income which was accepted. Subsequently, the AO reopened the case under section 147 based on information regarding cash deposits. The AO made an addition of Rs. 39,10,000/- under section 69A and also invoked section 115BBE. The appeal before the NFAC was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the initial appeal was dismissed ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to present their case and evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment and additions made by the AO were justified, and if the ex-parte dismissal by NFAC should be set aside.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 69A, 115BBE, 271AAC, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar Jain v. The DCIT Prop. M/s Ashish Engineering Works Sitapur Nai Basti, Kotwali Road Mahmudabad, Sitapur TAN/PAN:AISPJ2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 03 2025 Date of pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 27.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.4,08,770/-, which was duly accepted by the Income Tax Department. Subsequently, on the basis of information received by the Income Tax Department that the assessee had deposited cash, totaling to Rs.39,10,000/- in his Bank Account No.18191131000102 maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mahmudabad Branch and Bank Account No.32103011397 maintained with State Bank of India, Mahmudabad Branch, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and the assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.43,18,770/- after making an addition of Rs.39,10,000/- under section 69A of the Act.
2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee for the reason of non-compliance by the assessee during first appellate proceedings.
4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
That the Learned Courts Below are not justified in initiating proceedings U/s. 147/144B.
2. That the Leaned Courts Below are not justified in Assessing the Income at Rs.39,10,000/-.
3. That the Learned Courts Below are not justified in basing their judgment on the information received from outsources.
That the order passed by the Learned Courts Below is bad in law.
That the findings of the Learned Courts Below are contrary to law and facts of the case. 6. That the Learned Courts Below are not justified in creating tax and interest U/s. 115BBE. 7. That the Income Assessed is highly excessive and may please be cancelled. 8. That no specific findings have been given by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds taken in appeal.
5. None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing nor was any adjournment application received 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 35 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 21.01.2025 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the order dated 15.07.2024 of the NFAC was served on the assessee only on 24.10.2024, therefore, the appeal could not be filed on time. The prayer of the assessee was that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it 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.
The Ld. Senior 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. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the Assessee deserves one last opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I 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 and produce the necessary evidences in support of the transactions entered into by the Assessee. 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 the 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 11/03/2025.