RAJESH CHOUDHARY,C SECTOR SONAGIRI vs. ITO 5-(2), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 438/IND/2023Status: HeardITAT Indore09 February 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the marginal delay and the assessee's explanation. It also noted that both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed a delay in filing the appeal due to the order being uploaded online and not physically served, leading to it going unnoticed.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.02.2024Pronounced: 09.02.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 11.12.2019 passed by learned ITO- 5(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal.

Shri Rajesh Choudhary, Sonagiri, vs. ITO,5(2), Bhopal

2.

When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of assessee/ appellant neither any adjournment application is filed. On perusal of records, it is found that the notice of hearing sent to assessee has been returned by postal authorities. However, Ld. AR was ready to make submissions on behalf of revenue/respondent. On perusal of case file, it is found the orders passed by both of the lower-authorities are ex-parte.

Therefore, the case can be heard and decided. Accordingly, hearing is proceeded with.

3.

The registry has informed that the there is a small delay of 7 days in filing this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit. The reason of delay mentioned by assessee is such that the impugned order passed by first-appellate authority was uploaded on e-filing website of department and there was no physical service. Hence, the impugned order remained un-noticed by assessee.

However, subsequently, when the assessee came to know of it, immediately he arranged to file appeal without further delay. The reason given by assessee is considered as sufficient particularly because there is a marginal delay of just 7 days. Hence, we proposed to condone delay in terms of section 253(5) of the Act. Ld. DR was fair enough in not having any objection. Therefore, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.

4.

During hearing, it emerged that both of the lower-authorities have passed ex-parte orders. It further emerged that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 38,500/- by disallowing deductions under Chapter VI-A

Shri Rajesh Choudhary, Sonagiri, vs. ITO,5(2), Bhopal Rs. 19,97,150/- in respect of cash deposits made in a/c with ICICI Bank since the assessee could not file any explanation. The assessee has stated in Point No. 4 of a sheet titled “Statement of Facts” filed to ITAT that he was unable to file proper explanation to lower-authorities because despite regular follow up with ICICI Bank, the statement of a/c could not be obtained since it pertained to a very old period. Considering this fact mentioned by assessee and having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, it is thought fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before AO and the AO can make a proper adjudication. Ld. DR would not have any objection but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be entitled to take an appropriate decision.

Shri Rajesh Choudhary, Sonagiri, vs. ITO,5(2), Bhopal

5.

Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 09.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →