Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, which was delayed by 61 days. The assessee stated they were unaware of proceedings before the CIT(A) and AO as their tax consultant failed to inform them or represent them. This led to an ex-parte assessment by the AO, making an addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- for cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it not intentional and due to a bona fide reason. Upholding the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing the AO to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposits.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal; denial of natural justice due to lack of communication from tax consultant; validity of ex-parte assessment without providing opportunity to explain cash deposits.
Sections Cited
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 144, Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
(A.Y.2012-13) Manoj Yadav, S/o Balbir Singh, H.No. 74/4, Shakti Nagar, District Rewari, Harayana 125052 ...... अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN: AFZPY-4821-K बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari, ..... �ितवादी/Respondent Haryana अपीलाथ� �ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate �ितवादी�ारा/Respondent by : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 11/09/2024 घोषणा क� ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 11/09/2024 आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 31.01.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13.
This appeal is time barred by 61 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The said application is supported by an affidavit. After perusal of the said application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal was not intentional or deliberate but was for the bonafide reason stated in the application. The delay in filing of appeal is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.
Shri Parth Singhal, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submits that the assessee was absolutely unaware of proceedings before the CIT(A) and the AO. The notice of hearing was communicated to the tax consultant of the assessee, he did not appear to represent the assessee either before the AO or the CIT(A), nor did he inform the assessee about any proceedings under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’). The ld. Counsel prayed that if an opportunity is granted to the assessee to represent his case before the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee would furnish all the relevant details. The assessee has prima facie good case on merits. The primary addition made by the AO is in respect of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/- in the bank account. The assessee would explain the source of cash deposits in the impugned assessment year before the AO, if an opportunity is allowed.
Per contra, Ms. Shivani Bansal representing, the Department vehemently, defended the impugned order. She submitted that the assessee is recalcitrant and does not respect the notices issued by the Tax Authorities. The assessee neither co- operated during assessment proceedings, nor the assessee appeared before the CIT(A). She prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
Both sides heard. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has neither appeared before the CIT(A) nor before the AO. The AO was constrained to complete assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The reason given by the assessee for non appearance before the authorities below is that the Chartered Accountant to whom the assessee had assigned the case did not inform the assessee about the proceedings, nor he appeared before the AO/CIT(A) to represent assessee. Taking into consideration entire facts and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, this appeal is restored back to the file of AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
The assessee is directed to respond to the notice issued and served by the AO, without fail. The assessee is further directed to provide his email id on which the AO shall issue notice.
In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 11th day of September, 2024.