Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 28 days due to the illness of a partner. The assessee contended that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed ex-parte without providing proper opportunities. The revenue supported the lower authorities' orders.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days, acknowledging the unintentional nature and the assessee's potential for a good case. The Tribunal also noted that while opportunities were provided, circumstances beyond the assessee's control might have prevented compliance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex-parte order of CIT(A) warrants restoration for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 68, Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Assessee represented by Devesh Poddar Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 05/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 05/05/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 07/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. We find from perusal of record that there is delay of 28 days in filing of this appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal. Impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 07/03/2024, however, this appeal was filed on 03/06/2024. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay mentioning the fact that the partner of the assessee, Rakesh Singhania who was looking after the tax matter was seriously ill from Feb, 2024 to May, 2024. Due to continuous illness, the partner was not able to arrange the documents for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee stated that the delay in filing appeal is neither Hridaan Enterprises Vs ITO intentional nor deliberate. The delay is not inordinate. The assessee has good case on merit would suffer prejudice if delay is not condoned in its case and the appeal is not adjudicated on merit.
3. On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The assessee prayed to give one more opportunity and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A).
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue submits that on the issue of condonation of delay, the Bench may take appropriate view in accordance with law. On merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that sufficient opportunities have already been provided to the assessee as evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. First we shall consider the plea of condonation of delay, we find that the impugned order was passed on 07/03/2024, however, the present appeal is filed on 03/06/2024, the system has calculated delay of 28 days in filing this appeal. As recorded above, the assessee submitted that due to illness of the partner of the assessee, he could not file appeal within the time limit. Considering the fact that the delay is not Hridaan Enterprises Vs ITO inordinate and seems to be not intentional, therefore, the delay of 28 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
Now adverting to the merit of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The assessee was served with various notices, as recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his impugned order, to substantiate the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A). However, no compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A), in absence of any submission or evidence, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Now before us, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to provide one more opportunity to decide the case on merit before the ld. CIT(A). It is correct that reasonable opportunities have been provided to the assessee, still, there was no compliance. The facts remain that the income tax laws are within the ambit of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and therefore, given the facts and circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit of doubt has to be attributed to the assessee/tax payer. There may be circumstances beyond the control of assessee or "vis major" because of which the assessee may not have able to comply with the notices before the revenue authorities. Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non-compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousands) to be paid to Jharkhand Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Ranchi. Needless to direct that before passing the order,