Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order confirming an assessment. The assessee had deposited cash during demonetization and failed to provide details requested by the Assessing Officer, leading to an ex-parte assessment.
Held
The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal was 156 days and condoned it. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had not cooperated with the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Despite this, for the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and whether the ex-parte assessment order was sustainable.
Sections Cited
139(1), 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
Year: 2017-18 Thuthikulam PACB Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Thuthikulam, Namakkal 637 409, Ward 2, Tamil Nadu. Namakkal. [PAN: AADFT2362D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CA ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Noida for the assessment year 2017-18.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 156 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay explaining reasons for the said delay and prayed for condonation of that delay. On perusal of the condonation petition and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and therefore, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.
4. At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer found the assessee deposited cash of ₹.2,91,000/- into Salem CCB Bank Ltd. Sendamangalam Branch during demonetization period and no return of income filed within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The Assessing Officer issued pre- assessment notice dated 21.09.2019 requesting the assessee to furnish various details as stated at para 4.4 of the assessment order. Since the assessee did not file the details, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 19.12.2019 by treating the credits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order.
The ld. AR Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CA challenged the exparte order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). He submits that the society is an integral part of the Public Distribution System of the Government of Tamil Nadu, who holds a significant shareholding in the society. Moreover, the society is audited under section 80(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 by officers of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. The ld. AR prayed to afford an opportunity to the assessee as the assessee is ready to prosecute its case before the Assessing Officer without fail.
The ld. DR Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT opposed the same and drew our attention to para 3 of the impugned order and argues that the ld. CIT(A) has provided adequate opportunities to make submissions in support of the appeal.
Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act dated 19.12.2019. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued pre-assessment notice dated 21.09.2019 requesting the assessee to furnish various details as stated at para 4.4 of the assessment order. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and decide the matter in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31st December, 2024 at Chennai.