Loading judgment…

BHARATKUMAR DIPAK KUMAR JARIWALA L/H OF LATE KRISHNABEN BHARATKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), SURAT | BharatTax

BHARATKUMAR DIPAK KUMAR JARIWALA L/H OF LATE KRISHNABEN BHARATKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(2), SURAT

ITA 1028/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee's appeal was filed 46 days after the stipulated time, with the delay attributed to the assessee not checking the ITBA portal regularly. The original assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte. The assessee contended that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, and thus they were not aware of the proceedings.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. Considering that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee at the correct email address, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee was directed to be more vigilant in future.

Key Issues

Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities were justified and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Sections Cited

147, 148, 250, 271(1)(c), 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee represented by Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A. Department represented by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR Appeal instituted on 04/10/2024 Date of hearing 06/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 28/01/2025 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 20/06/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 31,49,514/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account treated as income from undisclosed sources.

Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala through L/H Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala Vs ITO 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in initiating Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.

5.

It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned Members of the Tribunal may deem it proper.

6.

Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

2.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee/appellant fairly submits that there is delay of 46 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 20/06/2024, however, this appeal is filed only on 04/10/2024, thus, there is delay of 46 days in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the delay is not intentional nor deliberate. The appellant could not check ITBA Portal on day to day basis and on checking it in the first week of October, 2024, realized/ came to know that his appeal has already been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). The appellant immediately filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one opportunity is allowed to contest the case on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the delay is not intentional nor deliberate and may be condoned and the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for passing the assessment order afresh. The ld. AR of the Late Krishnaben Bharatkumar Jariwala through L/H Bharatkumar Dipak Kumar Jariwala Vs ITO assessee/appellant submits that there is no inordinate delay and it may be condoned. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the Assessing Officer dismissed the appeal in ex parte proceeding without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee while filing appeal, provided e-mail address jagashthca1@gmail.com, however, on checking ITBA Portal, it was found that the notice under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) were issued on the e-mail bharatjariwala9@gmail.com thus, no notice was received by the assessee. Similarly, the impugned order was also not served through e-mail provided in Form-35. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of submission. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 31,49,514/- on account of cash and other credit in the bank account of assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has passed order for want of submission. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with liberty to file detailed written submission. The ld. AR of the assessee/appellant submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in making compliance.