Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra, vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.19-20 C.V. Raman Ward, Ward-Seoni Archipuram Colony New Bara Patthar, Seoni, Madhya Pradesh PAN:AMBPM4517H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 18.11.2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITO, Ward, Seoni under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.02.2014. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing ex-parte order without appreciating that appellant was prevented with reasonable cause in not filing the response as appellant was not aware of fixation of case and thus appellant was not able to file response in time.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in passing ex-parte order only on the ground of non filing of form 35 assessment order, grounds of appeal etc without appreciating that appellant have duly filed these details before the CIT(A), Jabalpur and it is the duty of the 0/0 CIT Appeal to upload the appeal under the faceless system and hence dismissal of appeal on technical ground is bad in law and even otherwise no notice was issued by NFAC after the enablement of the appeal in portal. 1 A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra
3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that case was selected under CASS for the specific purpose to verify the details as per AIR information only and therefore other disallowance as made in the assessment order is not permissible and therefore order passed by AO is bad in law and if at all he have to extend the scope of scrutiny he should have taken the approval from the Higher authority which was not taken in the present case and therefore assessment order may kindly be quashed as it is without Jurisdiction.
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,01,000/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act, without considering the reply filed by the appellant before the AO in which it was stated that no such property was purchased or sold from Smt. Bharti Waswani and addition was made merely on the basis of AIR information and no independent investigation was done by the AO to verify it without following the true sprit of conducting the assessment.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7,00,000/-made by the AO without considering the supporting documents produce by the appellant showing the detail of expenditure incurred in the development of plot and addition was made without assigning any cogent reason and even otherwise AO once have accepted the books of accounts no such disallowance is permissible in law that too merely on presumption.
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.45,942/- made by the AO merely on assumption basis and addition was made without assigning any cogent reason and even otherwise AO once have accepted the books of accounts no such disallowance is permissible in law that too merely on presumption.
7. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.29,795/- made by the AO without giving any cogent reason and addition was made without assigning any cogent reason and even otherwise AO once have accepted the books of accounts no such disallowance is permissible in law that too merely on presumption.
8. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.13,470/- made by the AO on the ground that these expenses could not be fully verified, whereas the appellant has submitted vouchers in support of these expenses, even after submitting supporting documents the addition was made by the AO.
The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.”
It is observed that the appeal is late by one year and eight months. A condonation petition and affidavit was filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the appeal against the assessment order had been filed through his C.A. who in turn had A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra engaged an Advocate at Jabalpur to handle the case. The assessee had not been kept informed regarding the status of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and it was when he received a notice of penalty proceedings from Jabalpur unit that he contacted his C.A. and sent the notices to him. However, in view of him not getting any response from the C.A., he contacted a new Advocate from Jabalpur and discovered that the quantum appeal of the assessee had been dismissed for want of prosecution by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 18.11.2022. Thereafter, the assessee filed a reply to the penalty notice on 12.09.2024 through his new counsel and also prepared and filed the present appeal. It was prayed that since the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, it was approaching this Tribunal to condone the delay as the same was not intentional. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamoorthy (1998) INSC 345, and those of various Hon’ble High Courts / Supreme Court in GMG Engineering Industries vs. M/s Issa Green Power Solution (Civil Appeal No.4473/2015), Improvement Trust Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh and Ors (Civil Appeal No.2395 of 2008) and A.C. Govindaraj and Ors vs. M. Krishnamoorty and Ors (Civil Appeal No.4473/2015). It was prayed that since there was reasonable cause for the delay, it may kindly be condoned.
We have duly considered the application. We find that since the assessee was unaware about the status of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, due to negligence of counsel, he was unable to file the appeal on time. Therefore, after considering the circumstances cited by the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
4. The facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of AIR information according to which the assessee had purchased land. The ld. AO observed that with regard to a sum of Rs.701000/-, the assesseee submitted a written response that had not purchased or A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra sold any such property from or to Smt. Bharti Vaswani. However, he held that the AIR information was quite clear that the assessee had purchased a property worth Rs.701000/- and the assessee has no documentary evidences for the same. Therefore, the ld. AO made an addition of Rs.701000/- in this regard and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The ld. AO also observed that the assessee, who is a property developer had shown a sum of Rs.1,04,56,475/- towards land development. The assessee was asked to submit the details of the land which had been developed and he submitted the same. However, he was unable to submit vouchers on the basis of which the expenditures could be completely verified. Therefore, the ld. AO made an estimated addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on this account. The assessee had also incurred fuel expenses of Rs. 85,890/-, telephone expenses of Rs. 27,520/- and also claimed deprecation on Car, Motor Cycle etc., of Rs. 70,359/-. The ld. AO held that these utilities had also been utilized for private purposes and therefore, he disallowed 25% of the same and accordingly depreciation of Rs.45,942/- was disallowed. The assessee had also claimed depreciation on site office of Rs.29,795/-, but did not submit any bills or vouchers in this regard. Therefore, the ld. AO disallowed this claimed expenditure. Assessee had also claimed Rs.44,465/- as office expenses and Rs.90,241/- as site office expenses but had not been able to produce vouchers to substantiate bills. Therefore, the ld. AO disallowed 10% of these expenses and made an addition of Rs. 13,470/-.
Aggrieved with these additions, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) in his order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, dated 18.11.2022, recorded the fact that the assessee had not submitted any supporting documents such as form 35, assessment order, facts of the case, grounds of appeal etc,. He also recorded the fact that he had sent many notices to the assessee for this but the assessee had not responded. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal.
A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra 6. The assessee is aggrieved at the dismissal of this appeal and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate, submitted during the course of appeal that the ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in dismissing the appeal in the way that he had, because the assessee had filed a proper appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur on 4.04.2014 in which all documents have been furnished. It was further submitted that regarding the addition of Rs.701000/-, the same pertained to a transaction between Sh. Bhagwat Singh and Smt. Bharti Vaswani and the assessee was not concerned with the same, therefore, no addition could be made in his hands. A copy of the sale deed in relation to this transaction was also filed before us and it was prayed that the assessee may kindly be granted relief in this regard.
On the other hand, Sh. Alok Bhura, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee had not made compliance either before the ld. AO or the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it should be assumed that he had no explanation to offer in this regard. Accordingly, he prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed.
We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that the assessee had filed its appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-Jabalpur on 4.04.2014 in a manual mode. We further observe that in respect of manual appeals, the responsibility for uploading documents on to the income tax Portal was vested in the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Therefore, if the Form No. 35, assessment order and other documents were not visible on the Portal of the CIT(A), NFAC, the appeal of the assessee could not be dismissed on that account without making an effort through intra departmental communication, to get the necessary records uploaded on to the system. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to communicate with the erstwhile jurisdictional office and ask them to upload the necessary documents on to the Portal so that the appeal may be heard. We also direct the assessee to respond to the notices sent on the Portal and file duplicate copies of the Form No. 35, assessment order, A.Y. 2011-12 Rajeev Mishra statement of facts, grounds of appeal
and challan so that the ld. CIT(A), NFAC may proceed with the appeal. Accordingly, with these directions, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC to hear the case and pass a decision in accordance with law.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30.05.2025 in the open Court.