Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 arises from an order confirming additions for unexplained commission expenses and bogus profit entries. The lower appellate authority's decision was ex-parte due to alleged non-compliance by the appellant. The CIT(A) refused to condone a 120-day delay in filing the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & others. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh on merits, subject to the assessee's risk and responsibility to prove facts.
Key Issues
Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and decide the appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 69, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM)
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s Din and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062912003(1) dated 19.03.2024 in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in short (the “Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion; confirming the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69 that unexplained commission expenses of Rs. 178,499/- and also treating alleged bogus profit entries Rs. 89,24,994/- in F&O segment, is ex-parte on account of the appellant’s alleged non-compliance. Learned CIT(A) has further refused to condone 120 days delay in filing of the lower appeal despite the fact that the assessee had explained the same in this condonation averments. Learned counsel further sought for buttress the possibility of communication gap vis-à-vis other circumstances beyond control that could not be all together ruled out in such instance of non-compliance in faceless appeal proceedings.
Faced with this situation, we quote Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice and condone 120 days delay in filing of the lower appeal. We accordingly direct the learned CIT(A)/NFAC to decide assessee’s impugned lower appeal afresh in tune with 250(6) of the Act as per law. Subject to the rider it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility to plead and prove all relevant facts; by way of supportive evidence or additional evidence; as the case may be, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.