ANAND GOVIND THATTE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 10/10/2024 Date of Order – 30/10/2024

O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 08/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer grossly erred in making an addition of ` 17,29,500, 2 Anand Govind Thatte ITA no.127/Nag./2024 under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition so made is illegal and liable to be deleted as per law and in the interest of justice.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer grossly erred in making an addition of ` 21,43,800, under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The addition so made is illegal and liable to be deleted as per law and in the interest of justice.

4. Without prejudice, the additions made under section 56(2)(vii)(b) is highly excessive and which deserves to be substantially reduced in the interest of justice.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals dismissing the appeal of the Appellant is not proper and the appeal of the Appellant deserves proper adjudication in the interest of justice.

6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon’ble Tribunal.”

“AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1. Anand Govind Thatte, do hereby take oath and state on solemn affirmation as under. -

1. 1. That I am assessed to Income Tax vide Permanent Account Number ("PAN") - ACZPT1883B.

2. That I had preferred an appeal for AY 2015-16, before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) against order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 14.12.2017.

3. That on account of Covid-19 as well as the fact that my mother left for heavenly abode in September 2019, causing grave disruption to my day- to-day life, I was unable to appear and represent before the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) adjudicated my appeal ex-parte vide order dated 8.5.2023, the fact of which I was unaware of as the entire proceeding was conducted online and in a faceless manner.

3 Anand Govind Thatte ITA no.127/Nag./2024 5. Recently upon receiving notices proposing levy of penalty for the impugned AY. I became aware that my appeal has been dismissed by Ld. CIT (Appeals).

7. The impugned appeal is thus delayed on account of the reasons mentioned hereinabove which constitute reasonable cause and the delay cannot be deemed to be wilful nor unreasonable. The delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be admitted and heard in the interest of justice.

9. No hardship or prejudice will be caused to the Respondent in case the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted, however if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not admitted, I will suffer substantially and irreparable loss will be caused.

4 Anand Govind Thatte ITA no.127/Nag./2024 attention to the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and particularly Para–6 to 11, which is reproduced below:– “6. The provisions of Sec.250(6) provides that the appellate orders of CIT(A) are to state the points arising out of assessee's appeal. The order shall give out the reasons for such decisions. The underline rationale of the position is that such order is further appealed.

8. Sec.250(6) expressly embodies such provision, if an asses see fails to appear before the CIT(A) and fails to submit the relevant documents, the CIT(A) is restricted to the disposals of the appeal based on the merits available in the record.

9. This stand was furthered by the High Court in the following Judgements.

& 1239/De1/2011; Asst. yr. 2005-06 2. PRAVEEN KUMAR PRUTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITAT, DELHI 'F' BENCH No. 478/De1/2011; Asst. yr. 1999-2000 ITA 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD, ITAT, BENCH 'C' KOLKATA Asst yr. 1992-93 4. JAI INTERNATIONAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, ITA No. 138/Jc1/2018; Asst. yr. 2012- 13 5. RAMESH SHARMA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT, DELHI 'F' BENCH, ITA No. 2911/De1/2013; Asst. yr. 2006-07 6. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, Misc. Civil Case No. 302 of 1991 7. U-LIKE PROMOTERS (P) LTD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VS. OF INCOME TAX,ITAT, DELHI 'H' BENCH, ITA Nos. 1569 to 1572/De1/2009 and 1377 to 1379/De1/2012; Asst. yrs. 1998-99 to 2004-05 10. In view of the above facts the appeal is decided as under: 11. Following the above explained rationale, the appeal stands dismissed.”

5 Anand Govind Thatte ITA no.127/Nag./2024 6. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee prayed that one opportunity may be granted to the assessee by restoring the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) to enable the assessee to substantiate its case.

7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

8. It is astonishing to note that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order without any application of mind, as his unilateral dismissal is divergent of his observations. He is directed to adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee on merits after giving proper opportunity. We order accordingly.