Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were time-barred by 155 days due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The delay was condoned as it was considered bonafide. The appeals relate to assessment u/s 143(3) and penalty u/s 271B for AY 2017-18.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed time limit, but condoned the delay due to a bonafide reason of incorrect email communication. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals were time-barred and if the delay should be condoned; whether the penalty imposed u/s 271B was justified and if the turnover was correctly determined.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 271B, 44AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE- & MRS. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE
The above captioned two appeals are preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.02.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”).
At the threshold, it is noted that the Appeals are time-barred by 155 days. Applications for condonation of delay along with an affidavit has been filed by the assessee. It has been submitted therein that the notices issued by the NFAC
1 | P a g e , 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad as well as the Appellate Tribunal dated 26.02.2025 were not served upon assessee as these were sent on incorrect email id i.e., aammjha@gmail.com whereas the correct e-mail id is primeconco@gmail.com . The assessee came to know about the passing of the appellate order only when the return was to be filed on 02.10.2025 resulting in delay of 155 days. We have heard the rival submissions and are of the considered view that the delay has been caused due to bonafide reasons and the same is, therefore, being condoned.
The appeal relates to the assessment made u/s 143(3) and penalty imposed u/s 271B for the same year. These are, therefore, being disposed of vide a common order.
are reproduced as below: “1. Learned Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in deciding the appeal ex parte without service of any notice, hence violated principles of natural justice.
2. Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in imposing penalty u/s 2718 without appreciating the fact that turnover of the Appellant id Rs. 1,58,46,000/- which is much below the threshold limit if Rs. 2. 00 crores which mandated to get the accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961.
3. Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in determining turnover of Rs. 2,43,59,000/- against declared turnover of Rs. 1,58,46,000/- merely on the basis of cash deposit during the year without assigning any cogent reason.
Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) has grossly failed in determining turnover at Rs. 2,43,59,000/- which contradict own finding in determination of turnover at 2 | P a g e , 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad Rs. 2,30,02,000/- by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment dated 17-10-2019 u/s 143(3).
5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, or delete, all or any of the ground before or at the time of hearing this appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income or Rs. 10,62,540/- for A.Y. 2017-18 on 27.12.2017. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s143(3) at an assessed income of Rs. 31,97,160/- after making addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during demonetization.
5.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of non-compliance to multiple notices during the course of appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 26.02.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that no compliance could be made before Ld. CIT(A) as the notices issued on wrong email id were never received by the assessee. He has further requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to the above said proposition.
After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording due opportunity to the assessee.
3 | P a g e , 6230/DEL/2025 Ramakant Tiwari vs ITO Faridabad 8. relates to imposition of penalty u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Since the penalty u/s 271B has been imposed after including total cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account to the declared turnover, which is the subject matter of appeal relating to the quantum addition and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal against penalty also ex-parte on account of non-compliance, this order is also restored to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to add, the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 -01-2026.