Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment under sections 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, estimating 8% income on bank credits due to the assessee's lack of explanation. The CIT(A) confirmed this assessment by refusing to condone a 78-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee subsequently filed appeals against both the quantum addition and consequential penalties.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 78-day delay, stating that the CIT(A) should have condoned it. It restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to present its case. The consequential penalty appeals, being ex-parte orders, were also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal; Whether the best judgment assessment and consequential penalties should be adjudicated on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 271(1)(b), 271B, 271F, 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘DB’, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JM
(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/s Soofi Tyre Palace ITO बनाम/ Vs. (Partner Sajad Ahmad Sofi) Ward Udhampur Anantnag, J&K 192 101 Jammu and Kashmir. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ADLFS-7057-K (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/Appellant by : Sh. Mohd Iqbal Untoo (CA) – Ld.AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid quantum appeal as well as penalty appeals by assessee arises out of separate orders of first appellate authority. ITA No.149/Asr/2025 is quantum appeal against the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 17-12-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 30-01-2024. In the assessment order, Ld. AO estimated income of 8% of total bank credits for want of any explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment for want of condonation of delay of 78 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has made a prayer for disposal of appeal on merits and stated that the assessee is in a position to plead and prove its case if another opportunity is granted to the assessee before lower authorities. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
We are of the considered opinion that the delay of 78 days could have been condoned by Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, we condone the delay and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
The other three appeals assails levy of consequential penalties u/s 271(1)(b), 271B and 271F. Since quantum appeal has already been restored back by us to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and the impugned orders are exparte orders, these appeals also stand restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith.
All the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.