Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 18,85,410/- from futures and options trading and Rs. 40,356/- from equity stocks as the assessee had not offered these to tax and did not provide satisfactory explanations or documents. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being time-barred by 160 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 13 days in filing the present appeal. Despite consistent non-compliance by the assessee, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to present the case on merits, emphasizing that further non-cooperation would allow the AO to pass orders based on available material.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present the case on merits.
Sections Cited
270A of the I.T. Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 19.10.2024 passed for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2. “1. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly rejected my application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The ‘A’ requests your Honour to provide one more opportunity to explain the case as ‘A’ was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing before the ld. CIT(A), the ‘A’ requests to set aside the appeal to the file of CIT(A).
The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the sole ground of addition of Rs. 18,54,410/-.” Asst. Year –2021-22 - 2–
At the outset, we observe that the appeal is time barred by 13 days. The delay of 13 days is condoned on due consideration of facts and owing to smallness of delay causing no perceptible prejudice to other side.
The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made net profit from futures and options trading amounting to ₹18,85,410/- which had not been offered to tax. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made net profit of ₹40,356/- in equity stocks, which again had not been offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer issued several notices of hearing, in response to which the assessee did not appear and filed only a single reply in which the assessee did not give any satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, the assessing officer made addition of ₹18,85,410/- and ₹40,356/- to the income of the assessee. While passing the order, the assessing officer made the following observations:
“4.4 Conclusion drawn: The assessee has not complied to the showcause notice till date nor submitted any reply. Therefore, it is evident that the assessee has no substantial documents or valid explanation to counter the variation proposed. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not furnish the requisite documents as called for. The assessee failed to explain the discrepancy in the Profit & Loss statement of F&O trading. In the absence of any submission from the assessee in this respect, the profit of Rs.18,85,410/- form F&O Trading and Rs.40,356/- from share trading is to be treated as undisclosed business income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings U/S.270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for under-reporting of income.”
In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the appeal was time barred by a period of 160 days. When asked to provide an explanation for the delay, the assessee gave a very brief explanation that the appeal could not be filed in time since: “the assessee was out of station for medical treatment for a family Asst. Year –2021-22 - 3– member”. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) was of the view that in absence of satisfactory explanation, the delay of 160 days in filing of appeal could not be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and an adjournment application was filed by the counsel for the assessee with the reason “I request your honour to adjourn the hearing as I am out of station”. When the matter was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there has been consistent non- compliance and non-cooperation by the assessee all throughout the proceedings both at the stage of assessment, at the appellate stage before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and also before us as well. However, in interest of justice, one final opportunity is given to the assessee and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to present its case on merits, since there has been no explanation/supporting documents which had been filed by the assessee at any stage of the proceedings before any of the Tax Authorities to take a considered call on the matter. However, we make it clear that in case there is further non- cooperation on part of the assessee before the assessing officer, the assessing officer would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders, on the basis of material available on record, in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06/05/2025 (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 06/05/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PSITA No.30/Srt/2025 Asst. Year –2021-22 - 4–
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""थ" / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.