DINESH AGARWAL HUF,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), RANCHI

PDF

ITA 263/RAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 March 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals were delayed, but the tribunal condoned the delay after considering the reasons provided. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity. The AO had made additions, and the assessee alleged a double addition and unjustified ad-hoc expenses.

Held

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and the assessee claimed lack of proper opportunities. Although the assessee was served notices, it failed to comply. Considering the principles of natural justice and the possibility of circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gautam, Sr.DR

Hearing: 12/02/2026Pronounced: 05/03/2026

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 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/-.

3. 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."

2. 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.

3. 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).

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 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.

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 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.