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

The appeal in ITA Nos.214 & 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.

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.

Since, the quantum appeal is restored to the file of Learned AO, the penalty being consequential in nature would also need to be restored to the file of Learned AO.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.