Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2017-18.
There is a delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit for explaining the cause of delay. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a retired Government employee and was posted outside his hometown. He was depending on tax consultant in respect of the tax matters. The ITANo.508/Ind/2023 Ajay Jaiswal E-mail ID of Tax Consultant was given in form 35 but due to oversight the tax consultant did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) as well as the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee was not aware about impugned order and came to know about the same order only when the bank account of the assessee was attached by the Income Tax Department. He has further submitted that the assessee was also suffering from serious ailments and was undergoing treatment as per the Medical report of the assessee produced by the Ld. AR. Further during the relevant period mother of the assesse was not keeping well also died on 21st August 2023 therefore, due to unavoidable circumstances the assessee could not file the present appeal within the time. Thus, Ld. AR has pleaded that the delay of 199 days for filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be decided on merits.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has not seriously opposed to the condonation of delay.
We have considered the rival submissions and careful perused reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit. The assessee has explained that due to his Government job he was posted outside the hometown and was completely depending on Tax Consultant for the tax matters. The E-mail ID of tax consultant was given in form 35 and therefore, all the notices as well as the impugned order of the CIT(A) were sent to the E-mail ID of the tax consultant but the same were not responded by the consultant as well as not brought to the notice of the assessee. The assesse has filed the medical
ITANo.508/Ind/2023 Ajay Jaiswal record to show that the assessee was undergoing of treatment during the period from year 2021 to 2023. Further the mother of the assessee was also not keeping well and died on 21.08.2023. Considering all these reasons explained by the assessee we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for delay of 199 days in filing the present appeal.
Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the delay of 199 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1.Whether the assessment order passed dated (9/12) / 2019 does not bear DIN on the body of the order thereby, rendering it invalid as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019. 2.Whether the order passed by learned CIT(A) is bad in law. 3.Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of learned AO in making addition in respect of cash deposits of Rs.23,00,000 u / s 69A of the Act, to total income of the assessee. 4Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the case on merits. 5.Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. 6.The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.”
6. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has passed impugned order ex-parte when there was no Page 3 of 6
ITANo.508/Ind/2023 Ajay Jaiswal response to the notices issued by the CIT(A). He has further submitted that the notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the E-mail ID of the tax consultant who has not responded effectively and consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non- prosecution. Ld. AR has further submitted that in the assessment order addition was made by the AO on account of deposit in the bank account of the assessee for want of supporting evidences to explain source of deposit. He has thus submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for deciding same afresh. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee undertakes to cooperate in the set aside proceedings and produced relevant evidence in support of source of deposit in the bank account.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly submitted that since the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-participation of the assessee and the AO has also made addition for want of satisfactory explanation and supporting evidences therefore, he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication.
Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the record, at the outset, we note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee when no response was received from the assessee to the four notices issued by the CIT(A). It is pertinent to note that the first notice was issued by the CIT(A) on 06.01.2021 and thereafter three notices were issued on 10.03.2023,
ITANo.508/Ind/2023 Ajay Jaiswal 16.03.2023 & 22.03.2023 within the period of 12 days. Thus, it appears that the impugned order was passed on 28.03.2023 without giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee as all three notices were issued in a short span of 12 days from 10.03.2023 to 22.03.2023. Further the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in para 6.1 & 6.2 as under:
“6.1 Per Contra: Nobody submitted any written submission in respect of the appeal proceedings despite of best efforts made by this office. 6.2 HELD: I have perused assessment order and considered the facts of the case. It seems that appellant does not want to pursue the appeal as appellant has not submitted any reply. In the absence of any written submission and evidence, I am compelled to sustain the additions even on the count of merit. Therefore, based on that The Grounds of Appeal
No.1to4 are also dismissed.”
9. Thus it is manifest from the record that the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee by speaking order but it was dismissed for want of any written submission or supporting evidences in response to the notices as issued in the month of March 2023. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after considering the explanation and relevant evidences to be filed by the assessee to explain the source of deposit in the bank account.
ITANo.508/Ind/2023 Ajay Jaiswal 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2024.