What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the principle of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its case before the lower authorities. This opportunity is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 was filed with a delay. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13.88 Lacs for unexplained expenditure, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to make a representation.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, despite previous negligence and failure to represent.

Lazarus Daniel Lenin Paul vs ITO | ITAT Chennai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23-08-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 24-12-2019. The registry has noted a delay of 115 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of an affidavit of the assessee. It has been submitted that the hearing notices were sent on email id which was handled by an employee. Though Ld. Sr. DR has opposed the condonation, however, considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed for adjudication of the appeal on merits. The ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing before lower authorities which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of unexplained expenditure for Rs.13.88 Lacs since the assessee could not establish the source thereof. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment since the assessee failed to make any representation therein.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The same would come at a cost of Rs.5,000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same shall be furnished by the assessee to learned AO who shall proceed for de novo assessment after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. AO shall be at liberty to proceed with framing of assessment on merits.

LAZARUS DANIEL LENIN PAUL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-10(3), CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments