Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE
आदेश /O R D E R
PER SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN & Order
I.T.A.No.356/VIZ/2024 Peddini Ashok Kumar No.ITBA/NFAC/250/2024-25/1065794536(1) dated 19.06.2024 arising out of order passed Under section144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 12.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
2. At the outset, it is noticed from the appeal record that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Explaining the reasons for belated filing of the appeal, the Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] drew attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee along with a petition seeking for condonation of delay and read out the contents of the petition which is as under: - “1. In the case of the appellant, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was passed on 19.06.2024. As such, the appeal against this order ought to have been filed on or before 18.08.2024. However, the appeal could be filed only on 29.08.2024 resulting in a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal.
The appellant suffered from throat infection, high fever with body pains during the period from 10.08.2024 to 25.08.2024. He was under treatment and complete bed rest as advised by the doctor during this period (copy of medical certificate is enclosed herewith). As such, he could not attend to any other affairs during this period. As soon as the appellant recovered, necessary steps were taken and the appeal was filed on 29.08.2024.
3. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reasons explained above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, the appellant prays the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the said delay of 11 days in filing the appeal and to pass appropriate orders in the interest of rendering substantial justice.”
On perusal of the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee and medical records as well as the submission of the Ld. AR, it is found that the assessee is prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause in filing the appeal
Page No. 2
I.T.A.No.356/VIZ/2024 Peddini Ashok Kumar beyond the prescribed time limit with a delay of 11 days. Therefore, the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 admitting total income at Rs.7,82,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under Complete Scrutiny Category and accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served on the assessee. In response, assessee has furnished copy of income tax return acknowledgement for the A.Y.2017-18 along with computation of income, P&L Account, Balance sheet, Form 3CB, Form 3CD reports for the A.Y. 2017-18. Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act requesting the assessee to furnish copies of all the bank account statements along with explanation towards the sources for cash deposits made in bank accounts during the period under consideration, as the assessee has deposited huge cash in his bank accounts during the demonetization period i.e 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. Further, as the assessee has not responded to the online query towards the sources for such cash deposits made through the e-filing portal of the income tax department, in the said notice the assessee was specifically asked to explain the sources for the cash deposited during the demonetization period with supporting evidences. The assessee has not responded to the notice. Further, Ld.AO issued notices under section 142(1)
Page No. 3
I.T.A.No.356/VIZ/2024 Peddini Ashok Kumar dated 11.10.2019, 07.11.2019 & 28.11.2019 requesting the assessee to furnish the information as called for. The assessee again failed to comply to the notices. Therefore, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment and observed that assessee has not filed any explanation towards the sources for the cash deposits made in his bank accounts during the period under consideration specifically during the demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016to 31.12.2016 and failed to prove that he has any cash balance in the denomination of Specified Bank Notes i.e. old Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- notes prior to 09.11.2016 in his books in order to treat the deposits as made out of the cash balance available. Therefore, he concluded the assessment by making addition of Rs. 14,06,000/- under section 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits and also estimated profit of Rs. 98,51,580/- being @8% on the turnover of Rs.12,31,44,757/- and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,12,57,580/-.
5. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt of the hearing notices on various dates did not file any supporting documents on his contentions as per the grounds of appeal raised by him. The Ld.CIT(A) thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal: -
Page No. 4 I.T.A.No.356/VIZ/2024 Peddini Ashok Kumar “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.14,06,000 u/s 69A of the Act and subjecting the same to tax at higher rate u/s 115BBE of the Act.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer is not justified in rejecting the books of account and estimating the profit @ 8% of the turnover.
Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld.AR pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A).
On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld. DR”] relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) thus, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is exparte order and pleaded to confirm the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
Page No. 5
I.T.A.No.356/VIZ/2024 Peddini Ashok Kumar 9. We have heard both the side and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, it is observed that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the prayer of the Ld.AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, following the principles of natural justice we are of the opinion that assessee shall be given one more opportunity to submit evidences substantiating his claim. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration by providing one more opportunity to the assessee and at the same breath we direct the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Ld.CIT(A) also directed to dispose off the case on merits. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November, 2024.