Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. The NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for not filing a condonation application for a delay of 76 days.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, solely on a technical ground. While acknowledging the assessee's lethargic approach, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case and documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine without considering the merits, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the AO.
Sections Cited
144, 144B, 234B, 234C, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 415/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2022-23 BKLG Vendors Private Ltd. cuke The ITO Vs. 263/859,Rajasthan Housing Board, Ward-1 Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur – 302 033 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICB 1767 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Shri Deepak Sharma,CA (Thru” V.C.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 15/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 24-01-2025 [hereinafter referred as “(CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for the assessment years 2022-23. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the order of assessee passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO ]in the matter of Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] and thus raising therein following ground of appeal:-
‘’1. The impugned assessment order dated 16.03.2024 passed u/s r.w.s. 144B is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same deserves to be fully quashed.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case by passing the impugned appellate order without providing the appellant a fair and proper opportunity to be heard, thereby rendering the order void ab initio and legally untenable. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) should be set aside for reconsideration.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case by dismissing the appeal in limine and, in fact, not admitting the appeal on the grounds that the appellant failed to file an application for condonation of delay. The order passed is flawed due to the lack of proper consideration of the appellant's circumstances and merits of the case.
Rs.65,68,680/-: The Id. CIT(A) arred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.65,68,650/- u/s 68 on account of Trade payables made by the AO. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be allowed in full.
Rs. 17,76,335/-: The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case by confirming the disallowance of Rs. 17,76,335/-on account of alleged non-genuine purchases claimed by the assessee The disallowance made and upheld is contrary to both the provisions of law and the facts of the case. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the disallowance be reversed and the amount be allowed in full
The Id. CIT(A) also erred in law and on the facts of the case by fully confirming the disallowances made by the AO with respect to the following expenses claimed by the assessee.
S.No. Name of Expenses Expenses Disallowed by the AO (Rs.) 1. Salary & Wages 30,97,276/- 2. Depreciation 11,24,104/- 3. Other Expenses 33,35,848/- BKLG VENDORS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR The disallowances made are contrary to both the provisions of law and the facts of the case Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the disallowances be deleted in full.
The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B & 234C The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason the assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay of 76 days. 2.2 During the course of hearing the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of being heard by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) did not decide the case of the assessee on its merit but dismissed the appeal on limine on technical reason as there was no application for condonation of delay from the side of the assessee. He further submitted that the AO had also passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee by computing total income of Rs.1,62,86,993/-. Conclusively, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that his case may kindly be restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication so that the assessee may be able to avail of one more opportunity to adduce the documents/ written submission to protect the interest of the assessee.
BKLG VENDORS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object to the submissions made by the ld. AR of the assessee as to restoration of the appeal to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noticed the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for the reason the assessee has not filed an application for condonation of delay of 76 days and thus passed an ex- parte order. It is also noticed that the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (for short AO) made the addition in the hands of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,62,86,993/- which is a voluminous amount for which the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to advance the documents/ written submission before the AO. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee could not put forth its defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that various opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue, but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing. However, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by BKLG VENDORS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative while proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15 /07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member