Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, which had dismissed the appeals due to non-appearance. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and sought condonation of delay in filing appeals.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after noting the assessee's submissions regarding non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals should be admitted after condonation of delay, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’B” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 194 & 195/JP/2024
ORDER PER BENCH: Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 03-08-2023 and 22-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 raising therein following grounds of appeal respectively. – A.Y. 2011-12 ‘’1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC), New Delhi in passing the order under section 250 of the 2 ITA NO. 194/JP/2024 KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV VS ITO, BEHROR Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee is unjust, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed
2. That his action of not providing proper opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal on the basis that no representation has been made by the assessee, despite the fact that the assesse has not received any notice for hearing on her address. Where it is fact that in form 35 ‘’it is mentioned that any notice and communication may to be send on mail - NO".
That the Id. AO has not rejected the evidences given by the assesse in his order and passed illegal order without taken or order sheet of the case.
4. That the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the cash deposit in his saving bank account amounting Rs. 10840000/- as unexplained money in terms of section 69A of the act is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.
That the appellant has neither received notice for hearing nor he was aware about the order of appeal. He first time come to know in Feb. 2024, Therefore delay in filling of appeal is for 201 days.’’ – A.Y. 2012-13 ‘’1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC), New Delhi in passing the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee is unjust, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed 2. That his action of not providing proper opportunity of being heard and dismissing the appeal on the basis that no representation has been made by the assessee, despite the fact that the assesse has not received any notice for hearing on her address. Where it is fact that in form 35 ‘’it is mentioned that any notice and communication may to be send on mail - NO".
3 KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV VS ITO, BEHROR 3. That the Id. AO has not rejected the evidences given by the assesse in his order and passed illegal order without taken or order sheet of the case.
That the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in holding that the assessee did not comply with the notices served on various were abrasive and is totally wrong and his action in passing the order u/s 147/144of the Act is illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the assessment proceedings of the assessee was also earlier completed u/s 147/143 of the Act for the same and there is no change of opinion or fact in the case.
5. That the action of the AO in treating the cash deposit in his saving bank account amounting to Rs.37,19,000/- as unexplained money in terms of Section 69A of the Act is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 6. That the appellant has neither received notice for hearing nor he was aware about the order of appeal. He first time came to know in Feb. 2024. Therefore, delay in filing of is for 90 days treating the cash deposit in his saving bank account amounting Rs. 10840000/- as unexplained money in terms of section 69A of the act is unjust, illogical and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. 5. That the appellant has neither received notice for hearing nor he was aware about the order of appeal. He first time come to know in Feb. 2024, Therefore delay in filling of appeal for 201 days.’’ 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench noted that there is delay of 142 days in filing the appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 and for 91 days for A.Y. 2012-23 by the assessee for which the assessee filed applications for condonation of delay 4 KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV VS ITO, BEHROR alongwith affidavit praying that the delay took place in attending the case before the ld. CIT(A) was because of non-communication of notices from his advocate, issued by the ld. CIT(A) and he further submitted that he did not receive any notice from the ld. CIT(A) at his address. He further submitted that he had no intention to disobey or any other reasons for non-compliance of the notices. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly objected to the condonation applications of the assessee but submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that the applications raised by the assessee alongwith affidavit has merit to condone delay. Hence, the delay occurred by the assessee in filing the above appeals is condoned. 3.1 As regards the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee did not appear before him in spite of sending notices. It is noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that it appears that the appellant is not keen to pursue the appeal and no material/ argument has been brought on record by the appellant against the order of the AO and in support of the grounds taken in appeal. The ld. CIT(A) took reference in his appeal in the case of CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt Ltd. 38 5 KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV VS ITO, BEHROR ITD320 (Del) and Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd. vs ITO (Delhi ITAT) and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It is also noted that the similar reasoning has been given by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 3.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the ld.CIT(A) and also refuted the arguments raised by the ld. AR of the assessee. 3.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noticed that the assessee could neither advance his arguments nor submit his written submission in connection with both the appeals before the ld. CIT(A). In such a situation, the Bench feels that one more opportunity of hearing should be provided to the assessee to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant papers concerning the issue in question before the ld.CIT(A). Thus both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 3.4 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.