SMT DEEPALI MANTHAN MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(1)-(4) , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1418/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal ( (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the delay and supported her explanation. While the Revenue argued that the CIT(A) had decided the merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the grounds to the NFAC/CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, considering the initial assessment had all relevant evidence. The taxpayer would need to plead and prove their case with evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 arose from an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had refused to condone a delay of 416 days in filing the appeal and also confirmed disallowances under sections 57(iii) and 68. The assessee did not appear at the hearing and was proceeded against ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the disallowances made under sections 57(iii) and 68 are justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 57(iii),Section 68

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)

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 03.07.2024Pronounced: 10.07.2024

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi’s Din and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060391242(1) dated 1.2.2024, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in short (the “Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges at the outset that CIT(A)/NFAC’s impugned lower appellate discussion has refused to condone 416 days delay in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal. On the one hand and further confirmed section 57(iii) disallowance as well as section 68 unexplained cash credits involving varying sums on the other.

3.

Learned DR vehemently supported the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion during the course of hearing before us. She could hardly rebut the fact that the assessee had indeed explained her delay of 416 days in lower appeal not only by filing her condonation petition but also supported her explanation against the impugned twin addition(s). Faced with this situation, the Revenue submitted that the learned CIT(A) has already decided the issue(s) on merits without prejudice to delay aspect herein.

4. We note in this factual backdrop that once the assessee had explained the impugned delay of 416 days, the learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the same and then dealt with merits than its impugned stand going against the assessee on both counts. Be that as it may, we are dealing with section 143(3) assessment dated 30.3.2016 wherein the assessee had indeed filed all relevant evidence(s) before the Assessing Officer. We therefore deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant substantive grounds back to the learned NFAC/CIT(A) for afresh appropriate adjudication on merits as per law subject to the rider it shall be the taxpayer’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. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →