SHRENIKKUMAR NATVARLAL VORA,NEW PASHUPATI MARKET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

Assessee represented by Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR Appeal instituted on 08/05/2024 Date of hearing 20/11/2024 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 29/08/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal which in short consists of validity of order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), addition under Section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 11,27,715/- and violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing reasonable and sufficient opportunity by the ld. CIT(A).

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee fairly submits that there is delay of 193 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 29/08/023, however, this appeal is filed only on Shrenikkumar Natvarlal Vora Vs ITO 08/05/2024, thus, there is delay of 193 days in filing appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in Form-35 while filing appeal, the assessee has mentioned e-mail address pankajvoraappeal@gmail.com and for the purpose of service of notices/communications through e-mail, the assesse opted “No”. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the notices were sent to the return preparer CS Biscuitwala who has not checked the e-mail. The assessee came to know that when the assessee’s Chartered Accountant checked ITBA Portal and consulted the present Authorised Representative of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in absence of any submission of assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment. The ld. AR of the assessee 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 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.

3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue has supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee was given ample opportunities by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed nine opportunities as recorded in para 3 of impugned order. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee deserve no further leniency. On the plea of condonation of delay, the ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that no reasonable explanation is offered by the assessee and delay may not be condoned.