Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Singh Transport Company, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for AY 2017-18. The appeal was delayed by 438 days because the appellate order was sent to the email address of their old counsel, and the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to the closure of their petrol pump business.
Held
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause for the delay. It set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide a proper hearing and the assessee to cooperate.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of a significant delay in filing an appeal and the validity of an ex-parte assessment order passed without proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 143(1), Article 265
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA (SMC
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
ORDER The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.07.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds:
Not Applicable u/s 69A & Estimated Profit because all the Transactions of the firm are verified by the audit balance Sheet of Shri Ram Prakash Singh including the following bank, whose personal return was filed on 07-11-2017, whose tax assessment date was passed u/s 143(1) by department letter reference number CPC/1718/A317 46377871 On 20-11-17, due to which tax cannot be charged. Twice on the same entry.
That the denial of proper hearing by sending the application to the email address of the old advocate is contrary to justice.
4. It is that as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Departments Circular No. 14(35-XL) dated 11-04-55, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to collect the correct tax.
5. That non-passing of the draft assessment order is unconstitutional and thereof, the case copy is required to be sent.
6. That it is not in the interest of justice to accept 2% profit without any enquiry or doubt, wereas the business carried on in the individual partner account and not in the firm cannot be added to the firm.
At the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice that the present appeal was filed by the assessee with the delay of 438 days delay due to the fact that the first appellate order was sent to the email address of the old counsel. Due to closure of the petrol pump run by the assessee, he could not service the counsel, hence the counsel has not updated the assessee with regard to outstanding demand and subsequent proceedings. He submitted there was considerable delay in filing the appeal before ITAT, in this regard he brought to our notice the affidavit file by the assessee. On the other hand, Ld DR objected to the condonation petition and submitted that there is substantial delay in filing the appeal.
After considering the submissions of both counsels , we are of the view that the assessee was running his business and subsequent to the reopening of the business it came to know of the outstanding huge demand and on merit, it was submitted that all the transaction of cash deposits in the bank are properly accounted. Since the notices and appellate order was sent to the erstwhile counsel, the assesssee was prevented from the 2 | P a g e filing the appeal on time. Considering the above facts on record and also there is considerable delay in filing the appeal, there is merit in the claim of the assessee and also there is reasonable cause was explained for the delay. Therefore, we are inclined to condone the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the appeal.
Coming to the facts on record, we observed that the assessment and first appellate order was passed ex parte and there is merit in the submissions of the assessee, for the sake of over all justice, the case of the assessee is set aside to the file of AO with the direction to redo the assessment afresh after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, the assessee also directed to cooperate with the AO without taking any unnecessary adjournment.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026