SHUBHAMANGAL SADI DEPO,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “ld.CIT(A)] which in turn arising out of Assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act, dated 10.03.2022

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

At the outset, I find that the time appeal is time barred by 162 days before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition stating that the notice of hearing was received in spam and the assessee could not notice it. Further, the impugned order was not received physically through post. This is the precise reason which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time.

Having gone through the averments made in the condonation petition, I am of the considered opinion that the delay deserves to be condoned by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. I therefore condone the delay of 162 days and proceed for adjudication of appeal.

Facts in brief are that the assessee are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Retail and Wholesale Cloth trading. It filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,999/-. Based on the information about cash deposit in the bank account during demonetization period, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) selected the case for Limited Scrutiny. Due to non-response to the notices of hearing sent, ld. AO completed the assessment making addition for alleged cash deposit as undisclosed income u/s.69A at Rs.12,25,000/- also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the income at Rs.12,69,999/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee without discussing anything on merits of the alleged cash deposit issue.

Further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal assailing the grounds extracted above.

Coming to merits of the appeal, I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. It is an admitted position that the assessee has not participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Even before the ld.First Appellate Authority, the assessee remained absent. Further, a mere perusal of the impugned order indicates that firstly no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee and secondly the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the return of income as well as not paid the amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it and has only referred to sections 249(4), 243B(1) and 208 of the Act. However, this observation of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC regarding section 249(4) of the Act has no reference in the instant case. I also observe that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has also not decided the alleged cash deposit issue on merit as contemplated under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of principles of natural justice, without dwelling into merits of the issue, I deem it proper to set-aside the impugned order under challenge and remit it back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to the stage of its institution with a direction to adjudicate the subject matter of alleged cash deposit denovo in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee and pass a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.