Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a 400-day delay, and the CIT(A) confirmed an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the negligence of their counsel, who failed to inform them about the assessment order and the subsequent deadline.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently justified.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 144B, 69A, 115BBE, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Date of Hearing 02.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 14.11.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. CIT(A), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 arising out of order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 11.03.2023 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.
Brief facts of the case: The assessment in this case, was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer had information that the assessee had deposited cash in saving bank account and had a cash transaction amounting to Rs.60,62,100/- in ICICI Bank Ltd. & Axis Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer gave several opportunities to the assessee but the assessee did not file any reply. On the basis of further enquiries, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,21,92,400/- (Rs.19,10,600/- in saving bank account no.144901501439 and Rs.81,80,300/- in current account no. 144905500213 and Rs.21,01,500/- in saving bank account no.914010041203694). Further, he made an addition of Rs.1,91,908/-(Rs.1,608/- in saving bank account no. 144901501439 and Rs.1,90,300/- in current account no.144905500213) thereby making the total addition of Rs.1,23,84,308/- u/s 69A r.w.s.
115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 400 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was not admitted.
Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order ex-parte without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity to present his case. In this regard, he referred to the ground no.1 of the appeal, which is reproduced as under:-
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 144/147 without providing the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Also during the appeal proceedings only one Notice of 7 days' time limit was served on 06-11-2024 on Mail id of the assessee and no physical copy of the Notice was served for hearing of the appeal and before assessee got aware of the notice on Mail, an Order u/s 250 was passed by The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 14-11- 2024, within 7 days of serving of first Notice u/s 250.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law in passing the order u/s 250 without providing the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.” 6. The ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In view of the fact stated in ground no.1 as above, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee before dismissing the appeal. The assessee explained the reasons of delay of 400 days by submitting before the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
"That the present appeal involves a delay of filing the appeal. The reasons for late filing the appeal is that due to the negligence of his regular Counsel /Consultant viz. Shri Jugal Kishore Shrivastave Advocate the assessere had remained unaware about the fate of the assessment order/ penalty order which had been passed by the Assessing authority. That the reasons for delay is that previous tax consultant did not inform to the assessee about the assessment order being the assessee is fully depend on taxation matter on its counsel/ consultant That the order was by the NFAC Delhi and was uploaded on E-Mail address of Consultant Jugal Kishore Shrivastave , Advocate The delay in filing of appeal had occasioned due to failure on the part of counsel office. The delay in filing the present appeal had occasioned for bonafide reasons. Sir the said delay was not attributable to any lackadaisical conduct on his part. Sir that is the precise and only the reasons that the appeal not presented in time , otherwise there was neither any malafide intention not deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee in making delay in filing the appeal and requested that there is a sufficient cause explained by the assessee which should be taken in to account and the delay in filing the appeal should be excused Thus there is a reasonable cause prevented the assessee for filing the appeal during the statutory time limit. I therefore request your honor condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
Considering the above submission, we are of the considered view that there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, condone the delay of the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file to pass an order afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.