Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return of income which was selected for scrutiny, leading to disallowance under Section 14A and addition under Section 68 for bogus agricultural income by the Assessing Officer. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of a 35-day delay in filing, without addressing the merits of the case.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that the CIT(A) had ignored the assessee's reasons for the delay and passed a non-speaking order without considering the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and verification, ensuring an opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely due to delay without considering its merits, and whether the substantive issues of disallowance u/s 14A and addition u/s 68 should be adjudicated.
Sections Cited
Section 14A of the Act, Section 68 of the Act, Section 143(2) of the Act, Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
(Assessment Year: 2013-14) Manju Devi Begani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 6A, Sai Ashish Society, University Ward-2(1)(3), Road, Surat-395007 Surat [PAN No.ACTPB1367Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by: Ms. Neeraj Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 O R D E R
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 23.05.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay in filing the same without appreciating the fact that there was no delay in filing the appeal of the assessee as the assessee had originally filed appeal manually in time on 02.05.2016 but subsequently again filed the e-appeal electronically in view of amendment in IT, Rules which mandated the e-filing of appeal.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. assessing officer has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,23,207/- on account of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 76,24,846/- on account of bogus agricultural income as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
Manju Devi Begani vs. ITO Asst. Year –2013-14 - 2– 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld, assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 11,43,727/- @ 15% of addition made of agricultural income of Rs.76,24,846/- on account of bogus agricultural expenses treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
It is therefore prayed that additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in course of hearing of the appeal.”
The assessee filed return of income on 27.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 17,88,980/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.09.2014 was issued on questionnaire along with notice dated 18.11.2015 was also issued to the assessee. The Authorised Representative of the assessee contended the assessment proceedings and furnished the details. The assessee derived income from agricultural and interest income during the year under consideration. After going through the details the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of Rs. 2,23,207/- and also made addition on account of bogus agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 87,68,573/- under Section 68 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) without taking cognizance of the assessee’s reply has dismissed, the appeal of the assessee only on the ground of the delay. The Ld. AR submitted that there is only the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR prayed that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be referred back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) despite receiving the assessee’s reason for delay has totally ignored the same, hence, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. The CIT(A) has totally ignored the merits of the assessee’s submission and has passed non-speaking order. Therefore, the issue contested by the assessee in the appeal before the CIT(A) are remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication and verification of all the issues. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 02/12/2025
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 02/12/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,