Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee's appeal was filed belatedly by 195 days. The assessee did not represent its case before the AO or CIT(A) and failed to respond to notices and provide explanations.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to represent its case properly before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication with adequate opportunities for the assessee.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and restoration of issues to AO for readjudication.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
(धनध ारण वषा / A.Y.s :2017-2018) MUSLIM FUND Vs. ITO (Exemption Ward), Jama Masjid, Sakchi, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur स्थ यी लेख सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAAM 0411 A (अपील थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri M.K.Choudhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates र जस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT-DR सुनव ई की त रीख / Date of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषण की त रीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25/01/2024, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060142968(1) for the assessment year 2013-2014.
On perusal of the appeal record, it is found that the appeal of the assessee has been filed belatedly by 195 days. In this regard, ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay stating sufficient reasons therein. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 195 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is heard finally.
3. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and the AO has made addition u/s.69A of the Act assessing the total income of the assessee u/s.115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the sister concern of the assessee M/s Jharkhand Muslim Welfare Society which was wrongly formed and the trustee intended to close the trust for which the bank balance was transferred to the account of the assessee. However, the said amount has been held by the AO as unaccounted money of the assessee and brought to tax in the hands of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act. It was the submission that the AO has already made the addition of Rs.1,58,95,031/- in the case of M/s Jharkhand Muslim Welfare Society for the year under consideration and as such, making further addition in the hands of the assessee to that extent will amount to double taxation which deserves to be deleted.
In reply, ld. CIT-DR vehemently relied on the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and submitted that no direction should be given to the AO and that the AO's decision should be unfettered.
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee has not represented its case before the ld. CIT(A) nor before the AO. A perusal of the order of the AO also clearly shows that the assessee has not responded to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act and also failed to give any explanation about the nature and source of deposits. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not submit the details with regard to its claim. This being so, in the interest of justice, we AO for readjudication after providing adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee. A liberty is granted to the assessee to raise all the defence that, if so desires, before the AO including the issues of reopening.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 03/04/2025.