Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the NFAC's order for AY 2018-19 was filed belatedly by 118 days. The assessee attributed the delay to a lack of awareness of tax compliances and reliance on a tax practitioner, who provided an incorrect email ID, leading to missed hearing notices. The assessee was also not given an opportunity of hearing before the NFAC.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reason for the belated submission. It was acknowledged that both the assessment order and the NFAC's order were passed ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and whether the NFAC's order passed ex-parte without granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee is valid.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 234A, 234B, 234C, 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 20.10.2023. the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, under section 250 of the Act is so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The appellant denies himself to be assessed at Rs. 4,02,08,585/- as against the returned income of Rs. 14,17,345/- for the assessment year 2018-19 under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice and equity.
4. Grounds on addition made under section 69A, Rs,3,87,91,240/-: a. The learned assessing officer is not justified in making addition under section 69A of the Act where the nature and source of cash Veeraraj Srikanth Konanur, Mysore Page 2 of 3 deposits stands explained, on the facts and circumstances of the case b. The power to invoke the provisions of section 69A of the Act is directory and not mandatory in nature. c. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest has been levied are not in accordance with law and further are not discernable from the order and hence deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
6. In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief be granted in the interest of justice and equity. 2. There was a delay of 118 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal, though assessee not mentioned the delay in its form No.36. The assessee explained the delay by way of condonation petition stating that he is not aware of the tax compliance and relied on his tax practitioner for the compliances. He submitted that the tax practitioner provided his office mail id while filing the appeal before the first appellate authority and all the hearing notices were sent to the said mail id and that the assessee was unaware of the ongoing proceedings. The assessee was manually served with a notice u/s 271AAC dated 26.3.2024 from the I.T. department and he approached the tax practitioner who thereafter logged into the e filing portal and realized that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereafter approached the present counsel and the appeal came to be filed before this Tribunal on 15.4.2024. The assessee submitted that due to the above reasons the appeal could not be filed within the due date i.e. 19.12.2023. Nevertheless, the appeal came to be filed on 15.4.2024 resulting in a delay of 118 days for the reasons mentioned above.