Loading judgment…

HIMANSHU VEDPRAKASH CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI | BharatTax

HIMANSHU VEDPRAKASH CHATURVEDI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1323/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 and 2017-18. The appeals were delayed due to the assessee's business closure and family issues, and the non-compliance of the CA appointed by the assessee. The assessee's appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) ex-parte due to non-compliance.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for both assessment years, considering the affidavit submitted by the assessee explaining the reasons for the delay. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding them on merits.

Key Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeals can be condoned and the matters restored to the CIT(A) for deciding on merits after due opportunity.

Sections Cited

250, 144, 24, 69C, 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Ms. Vanita Nara

For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Hearing: 26.06.2024Pronounced: 28.06.2024

Appellant by : Ms. Vanita Nara Respondent by : Shri P. D. Chougule Date of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-36/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2014-15 & 2017-18. Facts of both the years being similar, both appeals are being considered together.

P a g e | 2 & 1323/Mum/2024 AY 2014-15 & AY 2017-18 Himanshu Vedprakash Chaturvedi 2. The grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1322/Mum/2024 for AY 2014-15 raised by the assessee are as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: 1.Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing of appeal against the principle of natural justice. 2.Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without taking cognizance of Remand Proceedings. 3.Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of Ld. AO of considering income of Rs.4,98,00,000/- as undisclosed rental income.”

3. The grounds of appeal in AY 2017-18 raised by the assessee are as under: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law:

1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing of appeal against the principle of natural justice.

2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by Ld. AO which itself against principle of natural justice. 3.Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of Ld. AO of considering income of Rs.90,17,156/- as undisclosed rental income.

4. Ld. AO erred in adding Rs. 9,90,700/- u/s 69C on account of payment of credit card bills.

5. Ld. AO erred in adding Rs. 99,000/- u/s 69A on account of cash deposited during demonetization period.” ITA No. 1322/Mum/2024 for AY 2014-15

5.

The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order, but the same was also decided exparte vide order dated 20.12.2023. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed, as no evidence to substantiate the grounds were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered the appeal, filed before us, is also delayed by 33 days for which the condonation has been requested by the Ld. AR. An affidavit has been filed by the assessee stating that he had closed his business of set construction for films under name and style M/s Atreepur Studio in 2017-18 and that he was mostly staying at his native place in Uttar Pradesh due to his family issues. The CA appointed by him to look after the matters relating to income tax, failed to comply with the notices, resulting in the exparte assessment as well as the appellate order. 7. In view of the above facts submitted by the assessee, we hereby condone the delay and restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make appropriate compliance during the appellate proceedings. AY 2017-18 8. The facts of this year are similar to AY 2014-15. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed on account of non compliance to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal against the order dated P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1322 & 1323/Mum/2024 AY 2014-15 & AY 2017-18 Himanshu Vedprakash Chaturvedi 23.06.2023 has been filed before us after delay of 206 days. In view of the common affidavit submitted by the assessee for AY 2014-15 and AY 2017-18, explaining the reasons, the delay is hereby condoned. We accordingly restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to make appropriate compliance during the appellate proceedings. 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.