RAFIKBHAI AJIJBHAI VIRANI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT NFAC INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

The learned the National Faceless Appeal Centre [“the CIT(A)”] and the Assessment Unti, Income Tax Department (“the AO”) erred in fact and in law in initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act without issuing notice u/s ITA No. 141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act without issuing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act.

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act without providing the reasons for reopening u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Addition u/s 69A of the Act

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.1,25,77,793/- u/s 69A of the Act.

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making the addition to the total income of the appellant without considering the facts of the case in proper perspective.

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in considering the deposits to the account of Smt. Alpa Zakhar amounting to Rs.67,71,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the said income has been duly accounted for as the income of the appellant.

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.58,06,793/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act despite the fact that the income was from business receipts. Other grounds

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act.

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234A of the Act.

The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in levying interest u/s 234B of the Act.

The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, substitute, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.”

The appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 181 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel has explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee had not received the hard copy of the order of Ld.CIT(A) on time, neither physical nor through e-mail address. As soon as assessee obtained copy of order from his previous tax consultant, then after assessee took appropriate steps to file appeal before the Tribunal and this process has resulted into delay in filing appeal before Tribunal. Since the order of Ld.CIT(A) was not delivered to assessee either physical or internet/e-mail therefore, such delay has occurred which, may kindly be condoned. ITA No. 141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that delay was because of unawareness about service of notice on the portal. The assessee did not have any knowledge of impugned order passed on 18.06.2024. It was stated that assessee had no intention in filing the appeal in delay. The Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. The assessee is not going to be benefited by filing the appeal late. The consultant on whom the appeal was outsourced could not inform about any of notice nor the fact regarding impugned order being uploaded on the portal was shared with the assessee, hence, there was delay of 181 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, this delay may be condoned, and the appeal may be decided on merit.

On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay and stated that assessee has failed to explain the sufficient cause, therefore, delay should not be condoned.

We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We note that the order of the ld.CIT(A) was delivered on the assessee very late and tax consultant of assessee searched the order of Ld.CIT(A) on ITBA portal and sometime thereafter he took hard copy of the order of Ld.CIT(A) and let it know to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that assessee thereafter took immediate step to file appeal before Tribunal. Besides, there was mistake committed by the tax consultant of the assessee and therefore the assessee should not be penalized on account of mistake committed by his tax consultant. We note that this delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, in the ITA No. 141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

At the outset on merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was not aware about online proceedings and did not receive notice from the lower authorities, hence, assessee could not appear before the lower authorities. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that now assessee is ready with the documents and wants to furnish before the lower authorities and prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity to contest his case before Assessing Officer may be granted.

The ld. DR of the Revenue has submitted that ld. CIT(A) has given ample opportunities to the assessee but there was no response by the appellant, hence the ld. CIT(A) had no alternative but to pass an ex-parte order on the basis of materials available on record. Therefore, it would be wasting of the resources of the lower authorities if the matter is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, the Ld.Sr-DR has also stated that if the Bench wants to remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer then in that circumstances a minimum cost of Rs.5,000/- may be imposed on assessee, on account of non-compliance attitude of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non-speaking order, therefore, we do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not examined ITA No. 141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 23/07/2025 in the Open Court. (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) "याियक सद"य/Judicial Member लेखा सद"य/ Accountant Member राजकोट /Rajkot "दनांक/ Date: 23/07/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S ITA No. 141/RJT/2025 A.Y.17-18 Rafikbhai A Virani