Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual engaged in food grain trading, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) that dismissed his appeal ex-parte. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was delayed by 68 days, for which no condonation petition was filed.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee one more opportunity of being heard, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity of being heard before the CIT(Appeals).
Sections Cited
44AB, 68
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)
Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ramesh Prasad Gupta,……………….……..……Appellant 1, Bengali Road, Mithapur B Area, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:ACVPG5869L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna, Bihar Appearances by: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing: March 10, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: March 17, 2025 O R D E R
The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 20th December, 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The appeal is time barred by 68 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee did not file any condonation petition. The assessee is not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and that time he was very busy due to emergent 1 (A.Y. 2017-2018) Ramesh Prasad Gupta medical condition of his wife. When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 68 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business of trading of food grains in the name and style of M/s. Maa Ambey Traders. The assessee furnished his return of income on 07.11.2017 for the relevant assessment year declaring income of Rs.5,99,987/- alongwith tax audit report under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The assessment was framed by the ld. Assessing Officer by making an addition of Rs.33,24,500/- under section 68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had deposited cash out of cash sales effected during demonetization period.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order by upholding the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
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 order by making an addition of Rs.33,24,500/- and assessed the taxable income at Rs.39,24,490/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities 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 revenue authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. (A.Y. 2017-2018) Ramesh Prasad Gupta 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, I 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 of the case, based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.