Loading judgment…
Facts
Reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee for AY 2013-14 based on information of high-risk financial transactions, including Rs. 12.21 Crores received from 'Yathuri Associates', for which no regular return was filed. The assessee claimed ignorance of these transactions, stating they were a salaried employee. The CIT(A) dismissed both the quantum appeal (against the addition of income) and the penalty appeal for non-compliance, citing notices issued via the ITBA portal, while the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and unawareness.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 18-day delay in filing both appeals, attributing it to the assessee's pre-occupation with his daughter's medical treatment. Considering the plea of non-receipt of notices and lack of opportunity, the Tribunal remanded both the quantum and penalty appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals ex-parte for non-compliance without ensuring proper service of notices and granting an opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
Section 250(6), Section 147, Section 144, Section 271(1)(c), Section 282, Rule 127 of IT Rules 1962, Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.02.2024 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of Assessing officer, NFAC passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022. application for condonation of delay, stating that the CIT (A) order dated 27/02/2024, was supposed to have been filed by 27/04/2024, but the same has been filed belatedly on 14/05/2024 , which is delayed by 18 days . He submitted that he was pre occupied seeking medical advice at Government Hospital in Chandigarh, for his young daughter who was suffering from Vitiligo (Fulveri) and as such could not keep track of the appeal filing date, resulting in an unintentional delay, and prayed for condonation of the same and for admission of the appeal to be decided on merits. The Ld DR has no objection. Considering the reasons, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows:
“1. That the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the order of Learned CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable under the law.
That the worthy CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and merely relied on order of the AO and without applying his mind and without any rhyme & reason, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.12,21,62,872/- made by the AO As such the order of Ld CIT(A) is liable to be cancelled and the addition made may be deleted.
3. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the Assessing Officer before passing the order. Similarly, the worthy CIT(A) has 290/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 also grossly erred in confirming the order of the A.O. As such the order of the CIT(A) is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the case ex-parte without considering the material on record. The CIT(A) did not appreciate that no notice of hearing was received. As such, the order passed by the CIT(A) thereby confirming the addition is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled.
That the worthy CIT(A) should have considered the grounds of appeal raised before him which he has miserably failed to do so. The CIT(A) should have also decided the case on merits. As such the order passed is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts of this case and has not applied his mind and as such the addition made at Rs.12,21,62,872/- is not at all called for and the same may be deleted.
That any other ground of appeal which ma may be argued at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Brief facts emerging from records are that reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee, on the basis of information available in the ITBA system criv/ vruhigh risk cases, pointing to the allegation of huge financial transaction undertaken by the assessee involving various bank accounts and receipt of funds from one ‘YathuriAssociates” amounting to Rs. 12.21 Crores (Twelve crores twenty one lakhs approx. ) during the FY 2012-13( AY 2013-14 ), and without any regular return on record. claiming to be a salaried employee of “Kamdhenuesolutions Private limited”, Chandigarh, and expressed total ignorance of any such financial transactions under his Pan and declined to have any knowledge whatsoever, of the very existence of his numerous bank accounts in HDFC bank through which the alleged transactions (details in page – 3 of Asstt. order) has been carried out.
However, considering the written submissions the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.12,21,62,872/- , against which the matter was carried in first appeal before the Ld CIT (A) NFAC, and in absence of any representation or submissions in course of first appellate proceedings, in compliances with notices issued in the portal on five separate occasions (as evident from records in page 4 of CIT (A) order), the appeal has been dismissed for non compliance.
7. Now the matter is before the tribunal and in course of hearing the Ld AR of the assessee submitted that, the entire matter is under investigation by the CBI authorities and legal proceedings are ongoing in respect of one Mr Gagan Sitaram Suri (alleged proprietor of M/s Yathuri Associates), and in support of his contention the Ld AR submitted copies of various court proceedings under MPID Act 1999, before City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai (placed in paper book page – 2 to 61). been received by the assessee because none has been issued by post or through email id, and apparently it seems that all the notices has been issued through ITBA portal, and the assessee was totally unaware about the dates fixed for hearing, and he prays for an opportunity of proper hearing to put his submissions and evidence in support of his case.
The Ld DR relied on the order of the Ld CIT ( A ) and has also filed a written submission dated 09th September, 2024, requesting for dismissing of this appeal ,for non compliance with notices.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and documents produced before us in the paper book, and we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be best served if the matter is remanded to the files of the Ld CIT(A) for adjudication on the grounds of appeal
contained in form 35, on merits of the case, after allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file all necessary documentary evidences and submissions before the Ld CIT ( A ) in support of his case and to fully cooperate with the appellate authority for disposal of this appeal . act
61. (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62).
The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
/ 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61;
This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, filed by the assessee, the delay is condoned and the appeal admitted to be heard on merits.
In the instant case also there has not been any compliance to notices issued by the office of the Ld CIT (A), in the ITBA portal, on various dates, and the appeal has been dismissed for non compliance. facts of this appeal also.
Since we have remanded back the quantum appeal to files of the Ld CIT ( A) , we also remand this penalty matter back to the Ld CIT ( A) , to be decided on the basis of the outcome of the quantum.
290/Asr/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 21.05.2025.