Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a private limited company, filed an income return of Rs. Nil for AY 2017-18. The AO added Rs. 16,58,625/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to NFAC notices due to notices being sent to an employee's email which was not brought to the assessee's knowledge.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 16,58,625/- as unexplained money was justified, and whether the dismissal by NFAC was appropriate given the circumstances.
Sections Cited
69A, 250, 270AAC, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 18.3.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1) “The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act") is in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The learned Assessing Officer erred on facts and law by adding Rs. 16,58,625/- to the taxable income of the Appellant as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Janayoga Chitfunds Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 3) The learned Assessing Officer erred on facts and law by treating Rs. 16,58,625/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without understanding the Appellants business. 4) The Appellant craves leave to add, omit or alter grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. 5) The initiation of penalty u/s 270AAC of the Act is not tenable in law. 6) The levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act is exclusive and ought to be deleted. 7) Each ground is mutually exclusive and the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete, or substitute any or all of the grounds.”
2. There was a delay of 3 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. stated that due to oversight assessee failed to take steps to file the appeal within the statutory time limit and thus caused short delay of 3 days and prayed that the delay to be condoned.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, there is a short delay of 3 days, which was explained by the ld. A.R. that it was due to oversight assessee failed to take appropriate steps to file appeal before this Tribunal. Considering the short delay of 3 days, we admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and filed its return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs.Nil. The department has the information that the appellant company made substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. Accordingly, the case of the appellant was selected manually for the scrutiny purpose and subsequently the assessment proceedings were completed assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.16,58,625/- wherein the addition of Rs.16,58,625/- was made u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 4.1 Against this assessee went in appeal before NFAC and called for various information from the assessee to support this case. However, no response from the assessee by filing the requisite evidences before the NFAC. Hence, the NFAC dismissed the appeal