Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-2013 arises from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) that confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing due to a malfunctioning email address.
Held
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was ex-parte and not on merits. It noted that the assessee did not receive notices due to a technical issue with their provided email address, constituting a reasonable cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the appeal for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without giving an adequate opportunity for hearing due to a technical issue with the assessee's email address.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 254
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1789/Mum./2024 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Saffron Inc, The Income Tax Officer, 101, Vinod Villa, Old Ward – 31 (1)(1), Kautilya Nagardas Road, Andheri East, Bhawan, Bandra-Kurla Mumbai – 400 069. Complex, Bandra (East), Maharashtra. vs. Mumbai – 400 051. PAN ABEFS2784A Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri PiyushChhajed For Revenue : Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.
This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2012-2013, arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061994744 (1) dated 05.03.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
2 ITA.No.1789/MUM./2024
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals) (NFAC) erred in passing an order u/s 250 r.w.s 254 confirming the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 94,66,229/- on account of unsecured loans.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) erred in confirming the adhoc disallowance at 10% of total expenses debited to profit & loss A/c without appreciating that the expenses were recorded in books of accounts on day-to-day basis which were duly audited and therefore adhoc disallowance is not permissible under the provisions of law.
The appellant craves leaves to add, to delete or amend any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3 ITA.No.1789/MUM./2024 3. Learned counsel vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC herein has erred in law and on facts in upholding the unsecured loans addition of Rs94,66,229/- as well as confirming adhoc disallowance @ 10% of the total expenses debited to the P & L A/c.
We note in this factual backdrop that this is second round of proceedings between the parties before the tribunal. The assessee had admittedly filed it’s first round appeal ITA.No.1169/MUM/2023 and learned coordinate bench’s order dated 31.07.2023 had restored the same back to CIT(A) as under:
4 ITA.No.1789/MUM./2024
5 ITA.No.1789/MUM./2024
Learned counsel submitted in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A)-NFAC has not has not ensured effective compliance of the tribunal’s foregoing remand directions since he had issued all but one notice only on earlier given mail-ID and the correct mail-ID had been used only for a single instance. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the assessee is indeed ready and willing to prove it’s case if one more effective innings before the CIT(A) is afforded in tune with the earlier remand directions.
We find no merit in the assessee’s foregoing arguments. We wish to make it clear that we are in assessment year 2012-2013 wherein the Assessing Officer had framed his sec.143(3) assessment
6 ITA.No.1789/MUM./2024 way back on 27.03.2015. We observe that the assessee has not filed any supportive evidence at all right from the said first round and the very factual position continues till date. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that the assessee’s endeavour to get remand directions from this tribunal again and again is nothing but abuse of the process of law only. We reiterate in this factual backdrop that once the assessee had admittedly been served notice; be it the last hearing before the CIT(A)-NFAC, it is it’s bounden duty to comply with the same by filing all the relevant details. We thus conclude that once the assessee has all along taken the learned lower authorities for a ride, his substantive ground(s) raised in the instant appeal deserve to be rejected only. We order accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.