Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's original assessment included an addition of ₹13,56,500/- as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE related to demonetisation deposits. The assessee's first appeal to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was dismissed in-limine due to an unrectified typographical error in Form 35, where the assessment year was incorrectly mentioned.
Held
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in-limine for a trivial typographical error without providing a reasonable opportunity for rectification. It set aside the NFAC's order and remitted the file back to the NFAC. The NFAC is directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the Form 35 defect and then decide the appeal on merits de-novo.
Key Issues
Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was justified in dismissing an appeal in-limine solely based on a typographical error in mentioning the Assessment Year in Form 35, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 69A, 115BBE, 246A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068116925(1) dt. 29/08/2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 18/11/2022 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the National Faceless e- Asstt Centre [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2017- 18 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4
Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi Vs ITO AY: 2017-18 2. The case was called for hearing twice; none appeared at the behest of the appellant. Upon the request from Revenue and having regard to limited subject of dismissal of first appeal in limine, we deem it fit to proceed ex-parte in the absence of appellant u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963. Recording the same we proceeded accordingly after rejecting the adjournment application filed by the assessee.
From the submission of the Revenue and perusal of records it revealed that; the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 20/03/2018 declaring NIL taxable income with an agricultural income of ₹3,02,272/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the event of failure to adduce credible evidence and offer satisfactory explanation regarding nature & source special bank note [‘SBN’ hereinafter] of ₹13,56,500/- deposited into his bank accounts during the course of demonetisation, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained money and accordingly assessed the same in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee assailed the aforestated addition in appeal before the Ld. NFAC, which came to be dismissed in-limine on the reasons that the defect in Form No 36 remained unrectified by the assessee. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4
Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi Vs ITO AY: 2017-18 4. Aggrieved assessee came in present appeal challenging the action of Ld. NFAC for violation of principle of natural justice.
Without touching merits of the case; we have heard the rival party’s submission and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record. We note that, order of assessment in this case was passed in relation to AY 2017-18 on 18/11/2019 and an appeal thereagainst u/s 246A of the Act in Form No 35 was filed on 19/12/2019. The said Form No 35 however inadvertently mentioned the applicable AY as ‘2016-17’ instead of AY 2017-18. The Ld. NFAC intimated the aforestated defect to the appellant assessee for rectification but in the event of failure on the part of the appellant to rectify the same, the Ld. NFAC without further notice dismissed the appeal of the appellant in-limine for the stated reasons.
We understand that, the appellate forums are created by statute only to rest disputes conclusively and not to accelerate them for higher forum perfunctorily. Having regard to present facts and circumstances of the case & placing reliance Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors’ [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4628 OF 2023 (SC)], we are heedful to state that, while dealing with tax litigation, the Ld. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4
Laxmikant Gurappa Tyapi Vs ITO AY: 2017-18 NFAC being a quasi-judicial authority was expected to adopt justice- oriented approach rather resorting to iron-cast technical one whereby the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine for a trivial typographical error in mentioning the correct AY which could have been rectified by the appellant but for fair & reasonable opportunity.
Since the first appellate proceedings could hardly deal with the right & liabilities of rival parties, we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and remit the file back to the Ld. NFAC at the stage of its institution with a direction to accord reasonable opportunity to the appellant to rectify the Form No 35 and then deal with the dispute on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act.
The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 04th March, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.