SONY RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(2), FIROZABAD

ITA 214/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

Facts

The assessee's appeal arises from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, upholding an assessment order under sections 144, 147, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment determined the assessee's total income at Rs 38,60,000/-, significantly higher than the declared Rs 8,561/-, due to additions made to the bank account. The assessee claimed inability to participate effectively in assessment and penalty proceedings due to the critical illness and demise of the director's son, coupled with a change of counsel and delayed record submission.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings were ex parte due to the non-furnishing of requisite evidence. However, considering the genuine predicament of the assessee, which prevented them from presenting their case with sufficient cause, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and allow de novo adjudication due to the assessee being prevented by sufficient cause from presenting their case.

Sections Cited

144, 147, 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Mradul Pathak, CA

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 19/11/2025

& 215/AGR/2025 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 13.02.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 20.09.2021 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). As these are quantum and penalty appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

At the outset, there is a delay in filing of appeals by 2 days (in penalty appeal) and 3 days (in quantum appeal). Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeals before me and admit the appeals for adjudication.

& 215/AGR/2025 Sony Residency Pvt. Ltd

I find that the assessment order has been framed under section 144, r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 20-9-2021 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 38,60,000/- as against Rs 8,561/- declared by the assessee in the return. The addition made in the sum of Rs 38,51,439/- represent credits in the bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce in Account No. 03821131000601 for want of explanation by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned CITA. Before us, the Learned AR submitted that due to the critical illness and unfortunate demise of young son (23 years old) of the director of the assessee company, coupled with change of counsel and non-supply of the relevant records in time before the Learned AO, the assessee could not effectively participate in the assessment and penalty proceedings and also in the appellate proceedings. This collectively led to passing of ex parte orders both by Learned AO as well as by the Learned CITA and he prayed for one last opportunity to be granted to the assessee considering the genuine predicament of the assessee in the instant case. When this was put across to the Learned DR, the Learned DR raised no serious objection and fairly stated that the assessment proceedings were framed ex parte under section 144 of the Act due to non supply and non furnishing of requisite evidences before the Learned AO. I find that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause from not representing before the Learned AO by furnishing the requisite evidence. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of Learned AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is given liberty to furnish all the evidences in support of his contentions. With these observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes by restoring to the file of Learned AO.