Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 27/01/2021 of the Ld. CIT(A)-43, New Delhi.
The Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. The assessee furnished an application for condonation of delay stating therein as under:
Application U/S 253(5) of the Income Tax Act for condonation of delay in the case of SANTOKH SINGH DHILLON
Respected Members, 1. That the appeal annexed is directed against the order dated 27/01/2021 of the Worthy CIT (A) -1, Chandigarh. 2. That the said orders dated 27/01/2021 were served upon the assessee on 03/07/2021 through post.
That as the said order dated 27/01/2021 was received by the assessee on 03/07/2021, the accompanying appeal challenging the said order should ordinarily have been filed within the statutory period of limitation of 60 days i.e. on or before 01/09/2021. 4. That, as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Misc. Application No 665. Of 2021 the period of limitation expires on 01.01.2022.
That the aforesaid reason for not being able to file the present accompanying appeal within the statutory period of limitation is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in preferring the accompanying appeal.
In view of the aforesaid, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed. It is further prayed that the accompanying appeal may kindly be admitted for hearing on its merits after condoning the delay in filing the same.
Thanking you, Yours Sincerely Sd/- Santokh Singh Dhillon
During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid application and requested to condone the delay.
In his rival submissions the Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
After considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noticed that the delay occurred during the COVID-19 Pandemic, therefore, by keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in MA No. 665 of 2021 the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: 1. Whether the impugned order is against facts and law.
Whether the CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the the addition of Rs. 49,21,000/-made by the Ld. Assessing Officer?
Whether the CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 49,21,000/- for deposit of cash in ignorance of the provision of the Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Whether the CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions without considering the submissions and documents which were sent on email by the assessee as and when the notice was issued by the AO. Therefore, the addition made by the CIT(A) is not sustainable because the CIT(A) fails to consider the documents which were available on record therefore it is against the principle of natural justice.
Because the CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order without considering the fact that the appeal was not faceless appeal and mere posting of the notice on the portal is not sufficient proof to be considered as notice served to the assessee.
Because the CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order as the CIT(A) failed to proof that the notices and order were sent on the registered email or the communication address.
Because the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition in haste without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee or his counsel by confronting with any cogent evidence against the assessee.
The appellant craves leave to amend or alter the grounds of appeal before the same are heard and disposed off.
It is prayed that an appropriate relief may kindly be given.
The main grievance of the asessee vide Ground No. 5 to 7 relates to the exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The facts of the case in brief are that a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) was issued to the assessee on 29/03/2019, in response, the assessee did not file any return of income. The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 4921000/- which was the amount of deposits made in the bank account.
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by observing in para nos. 5.1 & 5.2 of the impugned order as under: 5.1 It appears from the numerous opportunities granted to the Appellant that the appellant &their representatives have failed to respond to the various notices issued by this office. As this office has first fixed the case for hearing on 26/08/2020, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. The case was again fixed for hearing on 09/09/2020, 29/09/2020, 20/10/2020 and 16/12/2020. The appellant was given a final opportunity on 15/01/2021, yet there was no compliance from their side. The notices were sent through email. 5.2 As there has been no compliance, it is clear that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and does not have any submission to substantiate his claim.
Now the assessee is in appeal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that no notice for hearing was received by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) without discussing the issue raised on merits, dismissed the appeal in limine. It was also stated that the assessee is a super senior NRI having age of about 89 years and having no income in India.
In her rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that since there was no compliance from the assessee side. the Ld. CIT(A) has no alternative except to dismiss the appeal exparte.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) although mentioned in the impugned order that the case was fixed for hearing on various dates but there was no
compliance. However, nowhere it has been mentioned that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is also noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merit and dismissed the appeal in limine which is against the principles of natural justice. We therefore, considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/03/2022) Sd/- Sd/-
सुधांशु �ीवा�तव एन.के.सैनी, (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ( N.K. SAINI) �या�यक सद�य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER उपा�य� / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 21/03/2022 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar