Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 59 days, citing non-receipt of notices due to an outdated email address of their former tax consultant. The assessment order was passed ex-parte by the AO, and the CIT(A) also passed an order without the assessee's active participation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not effectively confronted with the additions made due to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, in the interest of substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed with a delay of 59 days should be condoned and whether the ex-parte assessment order should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA
Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Anjan Biswas, AR Department represented by : Ashok Kumar, CIT Date of concluding the hearing : 08.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 13.01.2025 O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, there is a delay of 59 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of the said delay as under:
“1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the present appeal.
2. That the appellant states that the order of assessment was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on 15.12.2023. The appellant was required to file an appeal within appeal of 60 days from the said date. Thus, there is a delay of approximately 55 days in the filing of the present appeal.
That the appellant states that had not received any notice on the email ID as E- mail ID is not his personal or through any other mode of service is provided under the Act. The appellant thus was wholly unaware of the order in appeal having been passed. He knows about the order only after received an attachment notice from bank.
The appellant in the process learnt on 08-04-2024 that an ex parte order in appeal was passed confirming the notice of demand issued by the learned assessing officer.
Ajit Kumar Jha The appellant thereafter, approached its counsel for seeking remedies as provided under the law. The said counsel advised filing of appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay.
5. That the appellant states that apart from the fact that it did not received any notice in the faceless proceeding of appeal as E-mail ID is not his personal.
That the appellant states that the delay in filing of the appeal occurred due to reasons beyond its control. The same therefore, is due to a reasonable cause. The appellant submits that it has got a good case on merit and would suffer irreparable financial injury in the event the appeal is not admitted for hearing. The appellant submits that the delay in filing of the appeal may be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.” 1.1 Considering the reasons advanced, this appeal is admitted for adjudication in the interest of substantive justice.
The present appeal emanates from the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 15.12.2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
2.1 It is seen that the Ld. AO passed an order u/s 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2019 after adding an amount of Rs. 2,33,78,605/-. This addition was made on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. It is seen that this order was passed in an exparte manner.
2.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also the assessee did not make any presentation of facts in spite of 4 opportunities for doing the same.
2.3 Further aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:
“1. The order made by Ld. CIT (A) as well LD AO was far from material of facts. 2. No Physical notice from CIT (A) was received by The Appellant. 3. All soft copy of notices was sent to Email Address of Tax consultant who ignored that and failed to inform Appellant about that. 4. Hence the Appellant was deprived of opportunity of being heard.
Ajit Kumar Jha 5. In case of any petrol pump 90% of sale proceeds are in cash but the LD. AO. And CIT (A) has not ignored that Actual fact.
6. The assessment made by LD. AO. Was bad in the Eye of Law and for from Actual Facts.
RBI has given specific notification and allowing Petrol Pump, Airlines to accept banned old notes.
The appellant is Law Abiding and regularly filed his Income Tax Return and pay Taxes. Year wise sales profits Income Tax are annexed herewith. Sr. No. Financial Turnover Taxable Tax Year Income 1 2013-14 74891177 187988 68126 2 2014-15 155964530 316649 176772 3 2015-16 151207097 393187 317435 4 2016-17 221587116 1104588 303468 5 2017-18 297499278 2262126 896900 6 2018-19 442893944 4497282 1742591
Further, the Audited Accounts of appellant shows that as appellant hold huge cash Balance which proves that the appellant generates huge cash from cash sales.
The cash deposited in bank during demonetisation period are general from properly shown as Income and Income Tax has been paid as that Sr. No. Financial Turnover Cash Year Balances as on 31st March 1 2015-16 151207079 232497 2 2016-17 221587116 764836 3 2017-18 297499278 542135 4 2018-19 442893944 2038630
A Comparison Chart has been prepared to show cash deposit during denomination period in comparison to previous year and subsequently years.
The addition of Rs. 2,33,78,605/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty – Three Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred Five) will attract double taxation with which is against Constitution.” 3. Before us, the Ld. AR has stated that the e-mail registered with the Income Tax Department was of the erstwhile tax consultant of the assessee and hence effectively the notices fixing dates for hearing were never received. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of authorities below. However, he was in agreement in case this matter was to be remanded back to the Ld. AO for a fresh consideration of facts.
Ajit Kumar Jha 4. We have considered the averments of Ld. AR/DR and perused the documents before us. It is felt that the impugned addition was never effectively confronted to the assessee due to either non receipt of notices or non-compliance before the Ld. AO for some reason. In the interest of substantive justice, we deem it fit to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for afresh assessment. The assessee would do well to avail of this opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 13.01.2025