Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file a return of income. The AO reopened the case under Section 147 and issued notices under Section 148. The assessee did not respond, and the AO completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144, making an addition of Rs.69,05,882/- under Section 69A. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a 33-day delay.
Held
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC, directing it to provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. If the delay is condoned, the NFAC should decide the appeal on its merits, after giving the assessee a chance to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay should have been condoned.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 69A, 115BBE, 271AAC(1), 271F, 272A(1)(d), 194A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.11.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2018-19.
The brief facts of the case are that the Income Tax Department was in possession of information that the assessee had deposited Rs.56,01,100/- in bank accounts and had earned interest of Rs.13,04,782/- received under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) during the year under consideration. The assessee had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The AO, therefore, reopened the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act to ascertain the genuineness of the source of cash deposits made by the assessee and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. However, the assessee did not file return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The AO, thereafter, issued various notices to the assessee. However, the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the AO. The AO, therefore, completed the assessment under section 147 read with 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.69,05,882/- after making an addition of Rs.69,05,882/- under section 69A of the Act.
2.1 The Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC(1), 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately.
Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay of 33 days in filing of the appeal before the NFAC.
Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC was passed without affording proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore, the same is void ab initio and bad in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not condoning the delay of 33 days in filing of appeal without appreciating the genuity of the case of the appellant.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant was never served any notice for the assessment and the appellant came to know about the assessment proceedings only after receiving the final assessment order. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the submissions placed by the appellant and has dismissed the appeal without considering the merits of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition on account of Unexplained Money u/s 69A amounting to Rs.69,05,882/- without appreciating the facts of the case. 6. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against merits, circumstances and legal aspects of the case.
7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date oh hearing.
During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of delay of 33 days in filing of the appeal before the NFAC and that the NFAC had not dealt with the issues in dispute on merits. The Ld. A.R. prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the NFAC for deciding the issues in dispute on merits of the case.
The Ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the file of the NFAC.
We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, we restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the appeal and, thereafter, if the delay is properly explained, condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to present its case. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC 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 24/02/2025.