Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file the income tax return for AY 2017-18, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144. The AO noted a cash deposit of Rs. 10,26,900/- in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during the demonetization period. The appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal as the assessee claimed to have learned about the CIT(A)'s order late. The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were not properly followed and an opportunity for a denovo assessment before the Assessing Officer was necessary.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if a denovo assessment is required due to procedural irregularities.
Sections Cited
144, 139(1), 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Krishnan Rajini, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.3/295, Thinnhali, Ward 1, Balasamudiram, Dharmapuri. Vaguthapatty, PR Patty, Dharmapuri 635 302. [PAN: ASZPR 9713Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Velpandiar, Advocate for Shri G. Bhaskar, Advocate. ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059529081(1) dated 09.01.2024. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dharmapuri for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 06.12.2019.
2. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 188 days. The order of CIT (A) dated 09.01.2024 was communicated to the assessee on 09.01.2024 as per Form 36. The appeal has to be filed on or before 09.03.2024 but was filed only on 13.09.2024. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating that he came to know about the order of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing his appeal when his Jurisdictional ld. Assessing Officer contacted him regarding the arrears. When these facts were confronted to ld.Addl. CIT-DR, she objected for condoning the delay. We find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual did not file his return of income for the A.Y.2017- 18 as required u/s 139(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under OCM cases. Notice u/s 142(1) dated 12.03.2018 was issued and served on the assessee requiring the assessee to prepare a true and correct return of income in respect of which he is assessable and to furnish the same as per the provisions of Income Tax Rules and Act, 1961. The assessee has not complied with the said notice. As the assessee has not filed the return of income as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act on or before 31.03.2018, penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated separately. The ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.10,26,900/- into his bank accounts in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs)" during the demonetization period (08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016) relevant to the assessment year 2017-18. Since there was no response from assessee, the ld.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee on merits, although assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) despite four notices. Assessee is in further appeal before us.
Before us, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice in true spirit. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.AO, assessee will prosecute the case in assessment proceedings properly. Per contra, the ld.Addl. CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by both parties before us. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice assessee should be given one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer to prosecute his case. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. The Assessing Officer who shall proceed for denovo assessment after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment as per law.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of November, 2024 at Chennai.