DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. There were delays in filing these appeals, which were condoned by the tribunal. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed their appeals ex-parte without proper opportunity. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' orders.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee was served notices by the CIT(A), no compliance was made, leading to ex-parte orders. However, considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without appreciating facts, and whether additions made by the AO were proper and not double additions.
Sections Cited
143(3), 40(a)(ia)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
PER: RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M.
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the
National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 20/03/2025 and
07/01/2025 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively.
Both these appeals have identical facts and grounds, therefore, we decide
these appeals by passing the common order. Firstly we take ITA No.
262/Ran/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16. In this appeal, the assessee has raised
following grounds of appeal:
"1. For that Ld CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without appreciating the facts and grounds of appeal. 2. For that there is a double addition of Rs. 17,66,329/- to the extent that the same has been added by the Ld AO individually as well as included in the sum addition of Rs. 35,32,658/-.
ITA No. 262 & 263/Ran/2025 Dinesh Agarwal HUF Vs ACIT
For that the AO was not justified in making the addition of various expenses in an ad-hoc manner without pointing out any specific defects. The books of the assessee were audited and the financial figures were reasonable and comparative. As such, the disallowance made is fit to be deleted. 4. For that the addition made of Rs. 10,59,797/- U/s 40(a)(ia) being 30% of the above expenses Rs. 35,32,658/- for non deduction of TDS is fit to be deleted since TDS as required was rightly deducted and paid by the assessee. The reasons for non deduction was not looked into by the Ld AG and as such, the addition made U/s 40(a)(ia) is fit to be deleted. 5. For that any other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of hearing."
We found from perusal of the record that there is a delay of 65 days in filing
this appeal before this Tribunal, for which a petition for condonation of delay
was filed by the assessee mentioning the fact that the appeal fees was paid by
challan dated 25/06/2025. However, due to certain personal engagement in
the family of the assessee, the required papers could not be gathered within
time for filing of this appeal. The delay was not intentional and deliberate and
beyond the control of the assessee and prayed that the delay may be
condoned. The ld. Sr.DR did not raise any serious objections. Therefore,
considering the contents made in the condonation petition, we condone the
delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
On merit of the case, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing
Officer made various additions and completed the assessment proceedings
under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On appeal before the ld.
CIT(A), no proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee
and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. The
assessee, therefore, has prayed to give one more opportunity to substantiate
its case and the issue may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A).
ITA No. 262 & 263/Ran/2025 Dinesh Agarwal HUF Vs ACIT
On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld.
Sr.DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that onus was
on the assessee to substantiate its case. Thus, the assessee does not deserve
any leniency and additions made by the Assessing Officer may be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has
passed ex parte order. The assessee was served with various notices, as
recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in para 4.1 of his impugned order, to substantiate
the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A). However, no
compliance was made by assessee. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A), in absence of
any submission or evidence, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing
Officer. Now before us, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to provide one more
opportunity to decide the case on merit before the ld. CIT(A). It is correct that
reasonable opportunities have been provided to the assessee, still, there was
no compliance. The facts remain that the income tax laws are within the ambit
of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and
therefore, given the facts and circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit
of doubt has to be attributed to the assessee/tax payer. There may be
circumstances beyond the control of assessee due to which the assessee may
not have able to comply with the notices before the revenue authorities.
Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non-
compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of
natural justice, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the
appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing
ITA No. 262 & 263/Ran/2025 Dinesh Agarwal HUF Vs ACIT
the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to
cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reasons and to
furnish all the details and evidences to justify various grounds of appeal. In
the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for
statistical purposes.
Similarly in ITA No.263/Ran/2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17, we find that in this
appeal, there is also a delay of 126 days, for which the assessee has filed
application for condonation of delay. In this appeal, the assessee has raised
similar grounds of appeal except variation of addition made by the Assessing
Officer. We also find that the facts of the case and the grounds of appeal as
raised in ITA No. 262/Ran/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 are similar, where we
have restored the appeal back to the file of ld. CIT(A) after condoning the
delay, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency on similar set of
facts, the delay of 126 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal is also
condoned and this appeal of the assessee is also restored back to the file of
ld. CIT(A) with similar direction.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical
purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 05 March, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi, Dated: 05/03/2026 *Ranjan
ITA No. 262 & 263/Ran/2025 Dinesh Agarwal HUF Vs ACIT
Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi
