Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
These two appeals by assessee are directed against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 06.10.2023 & 24.11.2023 arising from assessment order passed u/s 144 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2013-14.
ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd.
There is a delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in the application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit of the Director of the assesse company. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, Director of the assesse company was looking after taxation matters of the assesse however, due to illness of his wife he was busy in getting treatment of his wife during the relevant period which has cause the delay of 41 days. He has also filed the medical report of the wife of the Director of the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AR has submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances the director of the assessee company looking after the taxation matter could not coordinate with the tax consultant/CA for taking necessary steps of filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, he has prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned as the same is unintentional and due to unavoidable circumstances.
On the other hand Ld. DR has raised no objection against the contention of delay specifically when the assessee has explained the reasons as wife of the Director of the assesse company was suffering from ailments and undergoing treatment at relevant point.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as the reasons explained by the assessee in the application for condonation of delay. We find from the medical reports filed by assesse that the wife of the Director of the assessee was undergoing treatment since December 2023 during the period when the ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. limitation to file the appeal was expired in the month of December itself and the present appeal has been filed in the month of January 2024. Accordingly we are satisfied that the assessee was having sufficient reasons for delay of 41 days in filing the appeal in ITANo.53/Ind/2024 and the same is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds in quantum appeal:
“1.The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the ex- parte order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio. barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3 The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in giving a fair and meaningful opportunity and dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, and not on merits. 4.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5.26.06.125 as unexplained investment us 69. 5.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 69A Considering as unexplained money. 6.The appellant carves leave to add. amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” The assessee has raised following grounds in penalty appeal:
“1 The Ld. AO was not justified in passing the Penalty order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.
ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. 2 The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the Penalty order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3 The id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,70,68,175/- against Penalty u/s 271(1c). 4 The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.”
5. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals against assessment order as well as penalty order ex-parte when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A). He has pointed out that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not in the knowledge of the assessee due to the reason that the e-mail ID to which the notices were sent was not in use. Further the Director of the assessee was engaged in the treatment of his wife and therefore, necessary steps could not be taken to file reply/submissions before CIT(A). He has thus, pleaded that the impugned order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO who has also passed ex-part order. Ld. AR has stated at bar that the assesse undertakes to cooperate with the AO in the remand proceedings.
6. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee is a habitual non-compliant to the notices issued by the AO as well as by the CIT(A). He has referred to the ten (10) notices issued by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal and four(4) notices were issued in the Page 4 of 6 ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. penalty appeal but there was no response and compliance on behalf of the assesse. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted that more than sufficient opportunities were given by the AO as well as the CIT(A) but the assesse was negligent to respond any of the notices.
7. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has passed ex-parte order u/s 144 when there was no compliance on behalf of the assesse to the notices issued by the AO u/s 143(2), 142(1) & summons u/s 131(1) of the Act. The AO accordingly made an addition of Rs.5,26,06,125/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of purchase of immovable property. The appeal of the assesse was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution when there was no response on behalf of the assessee to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). The assesse has now explained the reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A) as notices were issued to the e-Mail ID which was not in use. We find that the conduct of the assessee exhibits a negligent approach towards the assessment as well as appeal proceedings however, since the appeal of the assesse was dismissed for non-prosecution and the source of purchase of the property has not been verified and examined either by the AO or by the CIT(A) despite the assesse pointed out in the statement of facts before the CIT(A) that the property was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/- having stamp duty value of Rs.3,84,90,000/- against which the AO has made an addition of Rs.5,26,06,125/-. Therefore, all these facts are required to be properly verified from the relevant record. Accordingly in the facts Page 5 of 6 ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. and circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) passed in quantum appeal as well as the consequential order passed in the appeal against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) and remand both of the matter to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication subject to cost of Rs.2500/-each total Rs.5000/- to be paid to Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The assessee is also directed to Cooperate with the remand proceedings and not to take any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2024.