Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Basti Sahkari Kraya Center Vikray Samiti Limited, challenged an assessment order for A.Y. 2015-16, passed under section 147 read with 144B, which determined a total income of Rs.2,79,98,872/- against a returned income of Rs.4,75,340/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to this appeal before the ITAT, filed with a delay that was condoned. The core contention was the lack of reasonable opportunity during assessment and appellate proceedings, resulting in ex-parte orders and disputed additions under sections 69A and for interest income.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues regarding additions back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the assessee is provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; validity of assessment order passed ex-parte without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard; challenges to additions under Section 69A and for interest income.
Sections Cited
253(3), 147, 144B, 148, 69A, 148A(b), 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi order dated 14.05.2024, pertaining to the A.Y. 2015-16.
(B) This appeal has been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The assessee has submitted application, duly supported by an affidavit, for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee; and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present (B) In this case, assessment order dated 24.03.2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.2,79,98,872/- as against the returned income of Rs.4,75,340/-. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 14.05.2024. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 14.05.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), concise/revised grounds of appeal were filed revising the original grounds of appeal filed with Form no.
36. The concise/revised grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: -
1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily invoking section 147 and issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, without having reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the assessment order is void-ab-initio.
Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal no. 1 , it is contended that the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the Id. A.O. has not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passed the impugned assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act,1961, without placing on record any material in support the addition which was made on the basis of presumption and surmises only.
3. Without prejudice to Grounds of Appeal nos. 1 & 2, it is contended that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, has erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily upholding the addition of Rs.2,74,91,000/-, u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of cash deposited in the bank, even though the said amount represented duly audited sale proceeds from the trading business of Fertilizer, Pesticides, Seeds and Kerosene Oil etc. Therefore, the addition of Rs.2,74,91,000 is not justified at all and liable to be deleted as such.
4. Without prejudice to Ground of appeal no. 1, it is contended that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, has erred in law and on facts in arbitrarily confirming addition of income Rs.35,532 as interest income.
Page 3 of 4 5. That the appellant craves permission for amending the aforesaid grounds of appeal and/or raising fresh grounds of appeal.” (B.1) Further, in the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee filed a paper book containing the following particulars: - (C) We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the time of hearing, that the assessment order as well as the impugned appellate order of the learned CIT(A), both were passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Further, he submitted, the assessee was not given reasonable opportunity during assessment proceedings and during appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the issues in dispute regarding the addition made in the assessment order may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection to this. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute regarding additions made, are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance Page 4 of 4 with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds raised in this appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/03/2026.