HRIDAAN ENTERPRISE,DUMKA vs. ITO, DUMKA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 262/Ran/2024 (Assessment Year-2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hridaan Enterprises, I.T.O., Bhagalpur Road, Dumka. Dumka. Vs. PAN No. AAJFH 3035 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

ITA No. 262/Ran/2024 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. 5. 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

ITA No. 262/Ran/2024 Hridaan Enterprises Vs ITO inordinate and seems to be not intentional, therefore, the delay of 28 days in filing this appeal is condoned. 6. 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,

ITA No. 262/Ran/2024 Hridaan Enterprises Vs ITO the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reasons and to furnish all the details and evidences to justify various grounds of appeal. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Order announced in open court on 05th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 05/05/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi