Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which was passed ex-parte. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed time limit due to a delay of 118 days. The assessee sought condonation of the delay, attributing it to miscommunication via email with the Income Tax Department and failure of their accountant to relay crucial information.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 118 days, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient cause. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to sufficient cause and whether the ex-parte order of CIT(A) violates principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 44AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Arjun Lal Saini, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated dated 05.12.2024 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the inafter referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the assessment inafter referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Year 2013-14.
Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 118 days. The The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 118 days. The The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 118 days. The assessee has moved a petition reque ssessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condonation the sting the Bench to condonation the delay. The contents of petition for condonation of delay, are as follows; condonation of delay, are as follows;
“In connection with the above appeal the applicant most In connection with the above appeal the applicant most humbly and respectfully begs to humbly and respectfully begs to state and submit as under: under: 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response 1] The case of the applicant was reopened. The applicant filed the return in response thereto. The applicant also replied to the show cause notice. However, the return filed by thereto. The applicant also replied to the show cause notice. However, the return filed by thereto. The applicant also replied to the show cause notice. However, the return filed by the applicant and the reply filed in response to the show cause notice h the applicant and the reply filed in response to the show cause notice have not been the applicant and the reply filed in response to the show cause notice h considered by the Ld.A.Ο., NFAC, Delhi. considered by the Ld.A.Ο., NFAC, Delhi. 2] It is respectfully submitted that in respect of cash deposited in the bank account of the 2] It is respectfully submitted that in respect of cash deposited in the bank account of the 2] It is respectfully submitted that in respect of cash deposited in the bank account of the applicant, the same was out of regular cash flow from the cash book of the proprietary applicant, the same was out of regular cash flow from the cash book of the proprietary applicant, the same was out of regular cash flow from the cash book of the proprietary concern named Jay Ambe concern named Jay Ambe Textile. However, at the relevant time the accountant Sri Textile. However, at the relevant time the accountant Sri Ashokbhai Mangalani who writes the books of the applicant from his home was out of Ashokbhai Mangalani who writes the books of the applicant from his home was out of Ashokbhai Mangalani who writes the books of the applicant from his home was out of Jetpur and the accounting material and data was with him. As a result of the same the Jetpur and the accounting material and data was with him. As a result of the same the Jetpur and the accounting material and data was with him. As a result of the same the details and the explanation c details and the explanation could not be submitted to the satisfaction of the Ld.A.O. ould not be submitted to the satisfaction of the Ld.A.O. NFAC, Delhi. This resulted in the addition of Rs.2100000/ NFAC, Delhi. This resulted in the addition of Rs.2100000/- alleged to be unexplained alleged to be unexplained cash deposited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant submits that the books cash deposited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant submits that the books cash deposited in the bank account of the applicant. The applicant submits that the books of its proprietary conce of its proprietary concern M/s.Jay Ambe Textile are audited u/s.44AB and the audit rn M/s.Jay Ambe Textile are audited u/s.44AB and the audit report has been filed within the prescribed time. report has been filed within the prescribed time. 3] The second addition made in the assessment order is the capital gain on the sale of the The second addition made in the assessment order is the capital gain on the sale of the The second addition made in the assessment order is the capital gain on the sale of the plot at Jetpur. The assessment was reopened for this rea plot at Jetpur. The assessment was reopened for this reason only and the applicant had in son only and the applicant had in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital gain on the sale of plot to the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital gain on the sale of plot to the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 offered the capital gain on the sale of plot to tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and tax adopting its jantri value/value as per Stamp Duty Valuation as the sale price and therefore this issue is not in dispute as therefore this issue is not in dispute as the applicant has accepted the same. the applicant has accepted the same. 4] It is submitted that the e 4] It is submitted that the e-mail ID on the portal of the Department was of Sri Jitendra mail ID on the portal of the Department was of Sri Jitendra Kapadia and he did not inform the applicant about the notices from the National Kapadia and he did not inform the applicant about the notices from the National Kapadia and he did not inform the applicant about the notices from the National Faceless Appeal Centre and subsequent thereto th Faceless Appeal Centre and subsequent thereto the appeal order from the CIT[A], e appeal order from the CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal; and as such the appeal could not be filed within the NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal; and as such the appeal could not be filed within the NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal; and as such the appeal could not be filed within the time before the Honorable ITAT. The date of CIT [A] order is 05/12/2024. However, the time before the Honorable ITAT. The date of CIT [A] order is 05/12/2024. However, the time before the Honorable ITAT. The date of CIT [A] order is 05/12/2024. However, the fact that the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld. fact that the appeal has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi came to the CIT[A], NFAC, Delhi came to the knowledge of the applicant in the last week of May knowledge of the applicant in the last week of May-2025 and on coming to know the 2025 and on coming to know the applicant has filed the appeal before the honourable Bench. The affidavit in this regard is applicant has filed the appeal before the honourable Bench. The affidavit in this regard is applicant has filed the appeal before the honourable Bench. The affidavit in this regard is enclosed. Under the above circumstances it is pray Under the above circumstances it is prayed that the delay in filing the appal before the ed that the delay in filing the appal before the Honorable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot may kindly be condoned for which act of kindness Honorable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot may kindly be condoned for which act of kindness Honorable ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot may kindly be condoned for which act of kindness the applicant shall ever be grateful. the applicant shall ever be grateful.”
Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submit Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that based on the contents ted that based on the contents of the petition for condonation of delay, the delay of 118 days may condonation of delay, the delay of 118 days may kindly kindly be condoned, as the assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay. as the assessee has explained the sufficient cause for delay.
The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay of 118 days and stat condonation of delay of 118 days and stated that the assessee has failed t ed that the assessee has failed to submit the sufficient cause to condone the sufficient cause to condone the delay, therefore, delay should not be condone re, delay should not be condoned, and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed. and the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noticed that 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noticed that the 5. I have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and noticed that assessee has explained sufficient cause and reasons for the delay stating that assessee has explained sufficient cause and reasons for the delay stating that assessee has explained sufficient cause and reasons for the delay stating that assessee provided the email assessee provided the email-id to the Income Tax Department belonging to the id to the Income Tax Department belonging to the accountant, however, the accountant did not accountant, however, the accountant did not inform to the assessee, therefore the assessee, therefore, delay of 118 days has occurred. When the notice of demand has occurred. When the notice of demand for recovery for recovery of tax was issued to the assessee, then assessee came to know that the assessing officer assessing officer passed ex-parte order. Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the parte order. Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the parte order. Thereafter, the assessee took immediate steps to file the appeal before this Tribunal. How appeal before this Tribunal. However, in this process and because of mistake of the ever, in this process and because of mistake of the accountant of the assessee, the delay of 118 days occurred. I note that the assessee the delay of 118 days occurred. I note that the assessee the delay of 118 days occurred. I note that the assessee has explained the delay and required documents and evidences submitted has explained the delay and required documents and evidences submitted for such has explained the delay and required documents and evidences submitted delay, therefore, I condone the delay a , therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for the appeal of the assessee for hearing.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the notices were assessment proceedings, the notices were not served on the assessee, therefore, served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not file the requi the required documents and details before the assessing red documents and details before the assessing officer. During the appellate proceedings appellate proceedings, before the Ld. CIT(A), advocate of the advocate of the assessee did not corporate and did not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, assessee did not corporate and did not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, assessee did not corporate and did not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, because of mistake of the accountant/advocate because of mistake of the accountant/advocate of the assessee, the assessee , the assessee should Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani not be penalised. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee is not be penalised. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee is not be penalised. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee is ready with all required details and documents which are to be submitted before the ready with all required details and documents which are to be submitted before the ready with all required details and documents which are to be submitted before the Lower Authorities, therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed th Lower Authorities, therefore, the Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that one more e Bench that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the assessing officer, and matter restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh matter restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh matter restored back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication.
The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting th The ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. e stand of the ld. Counsel.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the fin relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld dings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 144 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. grounds raised by the assessee.
Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that assessee has not given sufficient note that assessee has not given sufficient opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. opportunity of being heard and could not plead his case successfully before the ld. CIT(A). I note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits note that the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee’s case on merits based on the material available before him hen based on the material available before him hence it is a violation of principle of ce it is a violation of principle of natural justice. I note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair t is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the lving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of restore the matter back to the file of Assessing officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient Ravi Parsotambhai Asnani opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing officer Assessing officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the ate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the ate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. assessee is treated as allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order is pronounced in the open court on Order is pronounced in the open court on 17/09/2025.