HEMANT V MORE,KALYAN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3THANE, THANE, THANE

4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in Labelling appellant as non-cooperative. Without detailed evidence of non- cooperation, it is unjust to penalize the appellant solely on this basis.

5. On facts and circumstances of the case and is law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in Ignoring genuineness of appellant, who is a dentist by profession. Covid 19 being one of the Reason for late filing is rejected as general and lacking substance. The reasonsof financial strain and legal disputes, which genuinely hindered the timely filing of the appeal has been ignored.

6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in Requiring affidavit as sine qua non for condonation. The CIT appeal insistence to 2299 /Mum/2024 Hemant V More on formalities without considering the substance of the appellant's arguments undermines the principles of justice and equity.

7. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in Prioritizing procedural technicalities over substantive justice. Ld CIT Appeal have violated the principles of natural justice, which require fair treatment and consideration of all relevant factors.

8. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and CIT(A) has erred in passing order in hurry without application of mind. The order is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that a survey was conducted under section 133A of the Act on 21/02/2019. The assessee declared the income during the survey. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) with the additions of Rs.53,50,378/- on the difference of profit undeclared by the assessee, disallowance of 30% of the expenses amount to Rs.1,10,44,993/- which works out to Rs.33,13,498/- and disallowance of purchases @30% on amount to Rs.1,14,74,404/- which works out to Rs.34,42,321/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 454 days. The assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) during the appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the appeal order was passed exparte and upheld the assessment order. Further, the assessee has not paid the admitted tax while filing the return. So, Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned appeal order against the assessee for 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, the representative of the assessee filed an adjournment petition. But the adjournment petition was withdrawn, and the ld. AR proceeded for hearing. The ld. AR has mentioned thatthe impugned appeal orders for all assessment years are exparte. The ld.AR also mentioned that considering the Suo motu Writ Petition of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld.CIT(A) has considered the delay for 454 daysand restricted the delay for 70 days.The ld.CIT(A) carefully mentioned in the impugned appeal order that the assessee has not paid the admitted tax while filing the appeal. As per section 249(4)(a), the admitted tax should be paid before filing of the appeal. The show cause notices were issued but the assessee had not complied with the said notices.For violation of Sections 249(3) and 249(4)(a) of the Act, the impugned appeal was dismissed ex parte. The ld.AR prayed that the appeal should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for further adjudication de novo.

In our considered view, the assessee was totally non-co-operative before the ld. CIT(A) and was unable to represent the matter in respect of any of the issues related to explanation of “sufficient cause” in the issue of the limitation and also the non-payment of admitted tax. The ld.CIT(A) has not passed the order on merit. The ld. AR placed due to medical emergency the assessee was unable to comply the notices of the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to remand the matter before the ld. CIT(A). We find that the reasonable opportunity of the assessee was denied for redressal of the grievance.The ld. DR argued and had not made any objection about the prayer of the ld. AR. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of to 2299 /Mum/2024 Hemant V More justice would be sub served if the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for consideration thereof afresh. We direct ld. CIT(A) to accept the appeal by condoning the delay. But in case of nonpayment of admitted tax, the assessee should get another opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) for explanation of correct fact. The ld.CIT(A) is directed toact as per the Act and to pass a speaking order fordisposingthe appeal. We are not expressing our view on the merit of the case which will impair the appeal of the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in set aside appeal proceedings. On the other hand, the assessee should be diligent and co-operative in the appeal proceedings for quick disposal of the appeal.