Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their first appeal. The assessee contended that the impugned order was bad in law and illegal due to a violation of natural justice principles. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to issues with communication and the demise of their erstwhile counsel.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's plea for condonation of delay was supported by sufficient cause, considering the communication issues and the unfortunate demise of their counsel. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be made to suffer due to circumstances beyond their control.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to bonafide reasons and lack of proper communication. Whether the impugned order of the CIT(A) is sustainable in light of the procedural irregularities.
Sections Cited
253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 2(22)(e), 40(a)(ia), 194C, 37(1), Chapter VIA, 246A, 143(3), 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
the order bearing Number:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055303506(1) dated 22/08/2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned order”. The Relevant Assessment year is Page 1 of 10
Factual Matrix 2.1 That as and by way of an Assessment order made u/s 143(3) of the Act, the total income of the Assessee was computed & assessed at Rs. 38,38,498/-. The total income as per the return of income was at Rs.7,83,340/-. The return so filed was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at the same income. The addition of Rs 4,12,812/- was made as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), of Rs.18,35,500/- as disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), of Rs.7,57,720/- on account of disallowance of paymnt made the person whereon TDS u/s 194C was not deducted, of Rs.35,850/- as expenses not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act & of Rs.13,276/- on account of disallowance of claim under chapter VIA. Thus in aggregate the income of Rs.38,38,498/- was assessed as stated above. The aforesaid assessment order is dated 29.02.2016 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment Order”.
Shri Ram Construction A.Y.2013-14 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core grounds and reasons for the dismissal of the first appeal was as under:-
“5.1 It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. Communications dated 24.02.2021, 14.02.2023, 02.06.2023,22.06.2023,26.07.2023,04.08.2023 and 11.08.2023. However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gain saying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant's compliance or rather lack of it, the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non- compliance/non prosecution of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed off, as under, ex-parte, primarily on the basis documentation available on record. 5.4 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and it has not even once argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averments, constraining me to, therefore, go through the extremely brief non- speaking submission filed along with the impugned appeal to decide on the merits while adjudicating the same. 5.5 In the case of the Appellant, filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 7,83,340/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and subsequently order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 29.02.2016 after making an addition of Rs. 30,55,158/- on account of the following and assessing total income at Rs. 38,38,498/-. ⅰ) Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)€ Rs. 4,12,812/-
Disallowance of payment made the person whereon TDS u/s. 194C was not deducted Rs. 7,57,720/- iv) Disallowance of transportation charges Rs. 35,850/- v) Expenses not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act Rs. 13,276/-
Total Disallowances Rs. 30,55,158/-
5.6 It is pertinent to note that even during the instant appellate proceedings, the appellant had chosen to remain silent and failed to substantiate or cooperate by filing the details called for, which shows the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. However, it was noted that despite several opportunities were given to the appellant, he has not responded for the reasons best known to him. Needless to mention that in order to prove his point, the appellant has to substantiate and back his point by providing relevant details, which he has failed to do so. 5.8 In view of the above, in the pertaining and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO for making an addition Rs. 30,55,158/- on account of the following and assessing total income at Rs. 38,38,498/-. i) Deemed Dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) Rs. 4,12,812/- ii) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) Rs. 18,35,500/-
Disallowance of payment made the person whereon TDS u/s. 194C wasnot deducted Rs. 7,57,720/- iv) Disallowance of transportation charges Rs. 35,850/- v) Expenses not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act Rs. 13,276/-
Total Disallowances Rs. 30,55,158/-
In this view of the matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds of the appellant are dismissed.
5.9 Before parting, it is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013
Shri Ram Construction A.Y.2013-14 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the additions/disallowances made by the AO is sustained in terms of the observations herein-above. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”
Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place on 09/02/2026 when the Ld. AR for & on behalf of the Assessee appeared before us & interalia contended that the “Impugned Order” is bad in law, illegal & not Proper. It is in the violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was next contended that the registry has pointed out the delay of 576 days in filling the Instant second appeal.
It was submitted that the “impugned order” is dated 22/08/2023 and the instant appeal ought to have been filed on or before 22/10/2023. However the instant appeal was filed on 29/05/2025. A condonation of delay application is placed on record of this tribunal. An affidavit in support is placd on record of this Tribunal. With regard to delay it was submitted that the during the first Appellate Proceedings before the Ld CIT(A) the hearing notice(s) were sent to the e-
Shri Ram Construction A.Y.2013-14 mail Id: surabhi13041993@gmail.com. This email Id although registered on the Income tax portal does not belong to the Assessee. This email Id pertained to the article assistant of the chartered accountant who had assisted CA of the Assessee in filing of the Income Tax Returns.
After Completing her article-ship the said article assistant Ceased to be associated with the concerned CA office.
Consequently the hearing Notice(S) and the order u/s 250 were sent to an email Id that was neither controlled nor monitored by the Assessee hence the assessee never received the same. Further the “impugned order” was not Received by Post also. Further the erstwhile counsel of the Assessee Late Shri Ashwini Rinwa expired on 22/11/2024 and after his demise the Assessee engaged another Counsel to Ascertain the Status of the appeal filed against order it was only then that the Assessee became aware of the “impugned order” passed u/s 250 of the Act. The sudden demise of the erstwhile Counsel followed by the Process of engaging a new counsel also added to the delay in filling of the appeal. It was therefore submitted that the delay is not due to any malafide
Shri Ram Construction A.Y.2013-14 fault of the Assessee. It was prayed that the delay be condoned. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the Income Tax Dept leaves the issue of Condonation of delay to the wisdom of this tribunal after hearing both the parties on the delay aspect of the present appeal & perusing the condonation of delay application with affidavit in support dated 03.06.2025 we condone the delay as sufficient cause is demonstrated before us. Appeal admitted and taken up for hearing.
3.2 The Ld. AR for the Assessee then submitted before this tribunal that compliances were made before the Ld. AO & impugned Assessment order was u/s 143(3) of the Act.
However no compliances could be made before Ld. CIT(A) because in the form no.35 the email Id was of Shreeram Construction 616@redimail.com & notice for hearing came at surabhi13041993@gmail.com (page 11 of appeal memo) which was created by article clerk of CA as stated earlier. If was stated that Assessee has a good case before the Ld. CI(A) on meritorious grounds. For bonafide & sufficient cause they could not make representation before the Ld. CIT(A) & if the Page 7 of 10
Shri Ram Construction A.Y.2013-14 impugned order is set aside they are willing to go back to the Ld. CIT(A) to argue their case basis merits. Per contra the ld DR stated that he leaves the issue on this score to the wisdom of this Tribunal to take appropriate call.
Observations Findings & conclusions 4.1 We now have to decide the legality validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case and Rival Contentions canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have heard the submissions.
4.3 We basis records of the case & after hearing & upon examining the rival contentions of the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR canvassed before us, are of the considered opinion that “Impugned Order” is not on merits is as much as say of the asessee could not be made owing to no notice(s) having been received as analysed & stated earlier. This Tribunal expects assessee to be vigilant enough towards income tax matters.
The assessee is expected to be cautious in the taxation matter. The assesee to update all his records I.e. correct
Shri Ram Construction A.Y.2013-14 postal address mobile-nos, address of its partners, if the partnership deed is dissolved then its particulars, updated email ID’s, partner’s individual PAN, firms’ PAN & such other & better particulars so that tax administration has no difficulties in searching them as communication is all important in modern economy. Taxes are required to be collected according to law & paid too according to law.
4.4 In the premises set out hereinabove we set aside the impugned order as & by way of remand to the ld. CIT(A).
5 Order 5.1 In the result the “Impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
5.2 In the result, Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in open court on 27.02.2026.