Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in retail wine trading, challenged the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order which upheld the AO's addition of 2.49% on net profit. The assessee faced a significant delay in filing the appeal due to severe Coronary Artery Disease and subsequent mental depression, supported by medical certificates and an affidavit.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 415-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's severe illness as a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case, with the stipulation against frivolous adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal delay can be condoned due to the assessee's severe illness, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication after the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
145(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 383/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 09-12-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law also Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in invoking and confirming SMT LILA MEENA VS ITO, WARD PRATPGARH the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting the books of accounts.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in applying N.P. rate of 3.50% as against declared N.P. Rate of 1.01% and thereby making addition and confirming addition of Rs. 15,71,442/- in the trading results.
3 That all the sales and purchases have been accepted hence the rejection and addition are unlawful. ‘’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 415days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay praying therein that delay was because of long illness as she was suffering from C.A.D. from Oct. 2022. She has filed certificate dated 12-02-2024 of treatment of Dr. R.D. Bhatt, MD (Gen Medicine), Pearl Hospital & Research Centre who has confirmed that she is under treatment from Oct. 2022 to till date. To this effect, the assessee has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR opposed the condonation application of the assessee for inordinate delay of 514 but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case.
SMT LILA MEENA VS ITO, WARD PRATPGARH 2.3 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noticed from the condonation application, affidavit and medical certificate filed by the assessee that she had been suffering from severe Coronary Artery Disease (C.A.D.) since Oct. 2022 which led to mental depression and incapacitated her to handle day to day activates. The Bench feels that there is sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Hence, in view of the condonation application and medical report of the assessee, the Bench condones the delay of 415 days and admits the appeal of the assessee. 2.3 As per the facts of the case, the assessee under the licence of the State Government was doing retail trading of wines during the year under consideration and it was the first year of its business. During the assessment proceedings after considering the replies and documents of the assessee, the AO made trading additions of 2. 49% on the net profit declared by the Assessee.
2.4 It is found from the records that although assessee challenged the order before ld. CIT(A) but neither filed reply of any notice served by ld. CIT (A) nor submitted any documentary evidence to prove her side of defence. Therefore ld. CIT(A) proceeded to ex-parte action and dismissed the appeal by considering the statement of facts and orders of the AO.
SMT LILA MEENA VS ITO, WARD PRATPGARH 2.5 Although ld.AR submitted written submissions and argued on merits, but alternatively requested to remand the case back to the file of ld.CIT(A) as due to ill health of the assessee, the assessee could not participate in the first Appellate proceedings.
2.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR also relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) concerning the appeal of the assessee 2.7 After having heard the counsels for both the parties I am of the view that it was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear and assist the first Appellate authority as and when called for. But the Appellant could not appear due to ill health. As it is a settled law that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
2.7 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any SMT LILA MEENA VS ITO, WARD PRATPGARH reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/08/2024.