Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was time-barred by 9 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay due to unawareness of the order and wrong legal advice. The ITAT condoned the delay. The brief facts state that the assessee declared income of Rs.11,46,000, but the AO treated certain advances and investments as unexplained income, assessing the total taxable income at Rs.1,83,52,138.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents before the AO and did not file written submissions or appear before the CIT(Appeals), despite several opportunities. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remit the matter back, giving the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be admitted despite being time-barred, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 144B, Income Tax Act, 1961
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
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th December, 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16.
(A.Y. 2015-2016) Chandan Kumar 2. The appeal is time barred by 09 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a condonation petition saying that the assessee is not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and due to wrong legal advice, there was a delay of 09 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay since the delay is not due to negligence on the part of assessee and the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.11,46,000/-. In this case, the department has credible information that the assessee has made advances to various entities and made investments during F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. In order to verify the genuineness and source of such loan and advances given by the assessee, letters were issued to the assessee but no compliance was made from the end of the assessee. In absence of any documentary evidence and analysis of ITR pattern of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained source of income during the year under consideration assessing the total taxable income at Rs.1,83,52,138/- under section 143(3) read with section 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assesese to substantiate his claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 14th December, 2023.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing.
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 assessing the taxable income at Rs.1,83,52,138/-. 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 his claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order 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. (A.Y. 2015-2016) Chandan Kumar 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 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/02/2025.