Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited, engaged in the rice mill business, made huge deposits in their bank account for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of these deposits, leading the Assessing Officer to treat them as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was prevented from filing appeals within the stipulated time due to the incarceration of their Director. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days. While the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the orders to ensure the principle of natural justice, remitting the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned, and if the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing considering the principle of natural justice.
Sections Cited
69A, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
order : May 27, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present three appeals bearing 635/PAT/2024 and 636/PAT/2024 are directed at the instance of assessee against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.Y. 2014-2015) (A.Y. 2015-2016) Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th March, 2024, 10th October, 2024 and 10th October, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, we have decided to dispose of the appeals after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record.
The appeal is time barred by 172 days in filing the appeals by the assessee. However, Managing Director of the assessee- Company filed a condonation petition saying that the assessee was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) as the Duirectgor Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, who was looking after affairs of the company was taken into judicial custody by Hon’ble session Judge, Patna on 24.03.2024 and released on bail on 04.03.2024 and apart from that, the Director and its family members were implicated in criminal case. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the merit of the case, the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer appeals, due to that there was a delay of 172 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented in filing the appeals 2 (A.Y. 2014-2015) (A.Y. 2015-2016) Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited within the stipulated time. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay of 172 days. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Rice Mill Sector. It filed its return of income for the assessment years under consideration. Subsequently the cases were reopened under section 147 of the Act after obtaining approval of the competent authority after recording reasons. On verification, it was seen that the assessee-company has made huge deposits of Rs.9,74,22,046/- during financial year 2012-13 in the Bank Account maintained with Punjab National Bank, wherein it is found that the assessee has filed income tax return for AY 2013- 14 on 25.09.2014 disclosing gross receipt of Rs.80,34,313/- only. As the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such deposits, therefore, the difference between deposit made in the bank account and turnover disclosed in the return of income for AY 2013-14 i.e. Rs.8,93,87,733/- (Rs.9,74,22,046/- minus Rs.80,34,313/-) remains unexplained in the hands of assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer added this amount of Rs.8,93,87,733/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money in the hands of assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer assessed income of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 at Rs.9,01,91,164/- (i.e. Rs.8,93,87,733/- plus 10% of gross receipt as business income).
(A.Y. 2014-2015) (A.Y. 2015-2016) Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited 5.1. Similarly On verification, it was seen that the assessee- company has made huge deposits of Rs.68,78,307/- during financial year 2013-14 in the Bank Account maintained with Punjab National Bank, wherein it is found that the assessee has not filed income tax return for AY 2014-15. As the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such deposits, therefore, the deposit made in the bank account remains unexplained in the hands of assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer added this amount of Rs.68,78,307/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money in the hands of assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer assessed income of the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.68,78,307/-.
5.2. Similarly On verification, it was seen that the assessee- company has made huge deposits of Rs.78,12,945/- during financial year 2014-15 in the Bank Account maintained with Punjab National Bank, wherein it is found that the assessee has not filed income tax return for AY 2015-16. As the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such deposits, therefore, the deposit made in the bank account remains unexplained in the hands of assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer added this amount of Rs.78,12,945/- to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained money in the hands of assessee. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer assessed income of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.78,12,945/-. 4
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals ex-parte on 14th March, 2024, 10th October, 2024 and 10th October, 2024 passed for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the ITAT.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment orders assessing the taxable income at Rs.9,01,91,164/- for A.Y. 2013-14, Rs.68,78,307/- for A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs.78,12,945/- for A.Y. 2015-16. Thereafter the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities 5 (A.Y. 2014-2015) (A.Y. 2015-2016) Pawapuri Rice Mill Pvt. Limited to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the orders passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds in the appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/05/2025.