Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal with a delay of 4 days, attributing the delay to the CA's involvement in audit finalization. The assessment was framed under sections 143(3), 147, and 144B of the Act, with additions made for cash deposits and withdrawals.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting it was attributable to the auditor and not the assessee. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's submissions without providing any reasoned order, which is contrary to the law.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the AO's rejection of assessee's submissions without a reasoned order is valid.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 31/07/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S /250/2024-25/1067182981(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.
At the outset, we note that there was delay in filing the appeal before us for 4 days only. The assessee has filed an application explaining the reasons for the delay, which was supported by the Affidavit and post office tracking documents. As per the assessee, the CA was busy in finalization of the Audit and, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. In view of the above, ld. AR submitted that there is no fault of the assessee in filing the appeal belatedly and, therefore, the same should be condoned.
On the other hand, considering the length of delay, the ld. DR left the issue on the discretion of the Bench.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Considering the length of delay and that too attributable to the Auditor and not to the assessee, we, therefore, are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit.
On merit of the case, we note that the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.ws 144B of the Act after making the addition of Rs. 1,10,55,240/- and 43,36,000/- representing the cash deposit and cash withdrawal from the bank account during the year in dispute. However, we note that the assessee submitted the details to justify the source of cash deposit vide letter dated 9/5/2023, which has also been acknowledged by the AO. However, the submission of the assessee given vide letter dated 09/05/2023 were rejected by the AO. In this regard, we note that the AO rejected the submissions of the assessee without assigning any reason. In our considered view, the AO is under the obligation to pass a reasoned and speaking order before rejecting the claim of the assessee.
Likewise, the provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act mandates to the ld. CIT(A) to pass reasoned order. However, we note that none of the authorities below has assigned any reason before rejecting the . submission made by the assessee vide letter dated 09/05/2023. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.