Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) that were passed ex-parte due to alleged non-receipt of notices. The appeals were filed with significant delay, attributed to the orders not being within the assessee's knowledge.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for non-receipt of notices to be sufficient cause. The matters were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned due to the assessee not being aware of the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A); and whether the matters should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 144, 40A(3), 56(2)(vii)
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. 238 & 239/JPR/2025
ORDER PER : RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Both these appeals have been filed against two different orders of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 24.08.2023 and 12-09-2023 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2014-15 in the matter of Section 143(3)/147 and 144/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus raising following grounds of appeals in the above mentioned appeals; A.Y. 2010-11 ‘’1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,22,042/ imposed by the Ld. A.O. on account of receipt suppressed as TDS Certificate which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same.
1. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the disallowance amounting to Rs. 8,71,800 u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition.
3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same.’’ – A.Y. 2014-15 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,67,500/- imposed by the Ld. A.O. on account of disallowance of expenses of commission which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same.
2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 477 days and 447 days in Appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2014-15 respectively for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed two applications for condonation of delay in connection with A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2014-15 mentioning mainly therein that the orders passed by the ld.CIT(A) was not in the knowledge of the assessee and repeated the contention what has been given in writing. The relevant contents being similar of both the applications of the assessee are reproduced as under:- ‘’1. That appellant filed an appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 19.02.2025 against the order dated 12.09.2023 and 24-08-2023 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), & 239/JPR/2025 SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR NFAC (i.e. with a delay of 447 days) for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2014-15in ITANos. 238 &239/JPR/2025 .
That primary email ID of appellant on income tax portal is 'MUMBAI@PENTALEAPWORLD.COM'.
That the hearing notices and order of CIT (Appeals) was communicatedto email Id SANTOSHTALEKAR@YAHOO.CO.IN and this email id does not belong to appellant and not in knowledge of appellant.Although, notice of hearing was communicated to another email address i.e. SANTOSHTALEKAR@YAHOO.CO.IN.
So, the orders passed by CIT (Appeals) were not in knowledge of appellant.
That in the First Week of February, 2025, appellant got a call from the officials of Income Tax Department regarding recovery of demand.
That appellant informed them, that we were in appeal before CIT (Appeals). Then they informed appellant that your appeals were already dismissed by CIT (Appeals).
That, thereafter appellant filed the appeal immediately before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench on 19.02.2025 against the orders passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals), with a delay of 447 days.
That the delay of 447 days was due to unaware about the adverse order dated 12.09.2023 & 24-08-2023 and same is the bonafide reason of delay in filing of appeals which is beyond my control. In view of above submission you are requested that kindly consider this as reasonable cause to condone the delay of 447 days in both the appeals. So, that proper inquiry can be conducted and substantial justice may be delivered to the appellant.’’ 2.2. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s applications for condonation of delay and prayed that Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by the assessee for condonation of delay of 477 days and 447 days in theabove & 239/JPR/2025 SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR mentionedappeals are sufficient to condone the delay as the notice of hearing and the service of order was not in the primary email id available on portal. The ld. DR did not controvert the facts mentioned in the affidavit. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delays (supra) in filing both the appeals by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.
3.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee in wherein it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order and mainly held in his order as under:-
‘’7.3.1With no submission/ explanation given or evidence to the contrary, the addition of the AO is upheld.’’ 3.2 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in wherein it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an ex-parte order and mainly held in his order as under:-
‘’5.3.4 Thus the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant appear as afterthought action to reduce income. Appellant has also not any documentary evidence in respect of other 3 payments made to other 3 individuals. Hence, the appeal of the appellant on this ground is dismissed.’’ 3.3 During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A) in relation to both the appeals and the assessee may be provided one more chance to justify the additions so made by the AO in both the appeals and the appeals may restored to the file AO for afresh adjudication as he was deprived of being heard. To support that he relied upon the affidavit filed for condonation and considering the peculiar nature of dispute he prayed to set aside the matter to the file of the ld. AO. 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the appeal of the assessee in 2010-11, it is noticed that the AO made following three additions:- Addition on account of TDS as para 3 of assessment order Rs.10,22,042/- Addition u/s 40A(3) of the Act as per para 4 of assessment order Rs. 8,71,800/- Addition as per para 5 Rs. 1,50,000/- It emerges from the assessment order that mainly the assessee had not submitted the evidence to justify the additions before the AO.
& 239/JPR/2025 SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 3.6 Further, from the appeal of the assessee in for the assessment year 2013-14 it is noticed that the AO additionby observing as under:- ‘’5.4 Thus in view of the elaborate factual and legal matrix amount of Rs.25,67,500/-, the commission expenses incurred by the assessee, is held as undisclosed income of the assessee.’’ It also emerges from the assessment order that mainly no explanation had been offered by the assessee regarding commission expenses of Rs.25,67,500/- and thus the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act and made addition in the hands of the assessee. 3.7 From the entire conspectus of the case, the Bench feels that one more chance should be given to the assessee to contest the appeals (supra) before the AO and 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 matters relating to both the appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
& 239/JPR/2025 SHRI RANJAN SHARMA VS ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 3.8 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. 4.0 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 29/04/2025 *Mishra, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Shri Ranjan Sharma, Mumbai 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 6 (2), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File & 239/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत