Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
Moorthy Anand Babu, The Income Tax Officer, 163-2/79, MG Road, Vs. Ward-1, Zuzuvadi Sipcot, Hosur. Hosur – 635 126 [PAN: APXPA 4791A] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate & Ms. A. Nikita, Advocate IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri V. Justin, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 01.09.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 31.12.2019.
There is a delay of 190 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.
The Ld. AR has submitted affidavit filed by the assessee stating that e- mail id provided for communication in the appeal was manjunathanctr99@gmail.com, but as the email was not active and C.A updated email on 31.03.2022 as srinidhi0856@gmail.com. The notice issued by Ld. CIT(A) was on the old email id and assessee came to know about the appeal order only after during recovery proceedings was initiated. The Ld. AR has submitted that as assessee was not aware of the Ld. CIT(A) order, the appeal could not be filed within time and there is delay of 190 days and requested for condone the delay.
We have considered the affidavit filed by the assessee and arguments of the Ld. A.R, we find that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is condoned accordingly.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the wholesale dealer in mobile phones and accessories and also engaged in the commission business of money transfer in Hosur. In this case assessment order has been passed making addition of Rs. 1,42,33,500/- for cash deposit made in specified bank notes in the bank account. The assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee has not complied with the notices issued on 08.09.2021, 19.07.2023, 03.08.2023 and 21.08.2023.
The Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte without hearing the case therefore, one more opportunity may be provided to present his case before Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the order has been passed by Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte as the assessee has not made any submission. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has not received notices due to change in email.
We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We also direct the Assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31st July, 2024.