Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune. 7 M.G. Road, 36, Wonderland Camp, Pune- 411001. PAN : ADAPV3432C Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 14.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13.
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the total income of the appellant at Rs. 2,06,83,929/- instead of return income of Rs. 5,08,729/-.
2. The appellant contends that unfortunately, the appellant failed to check the ITBA portal and learn about the opportunities of hearing /making submission before IT Authorities, and neither got any email communication from the office of learned CIT(A). Further, the appellant contends that appellant is certainly keen to pursue the matter on merits & facts.
3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs 32,50,000/- as an unexplained investment being a purchase of immovable property.
The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit on account of the sale of immovable property.
5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made u/s 68 of Rs. 21,75,200/- by treating the cash deposits in the savings bank account as unexplained cash credit.
6. The appellant craves leave to add / alter / clarify / explain / modify/ enhance / delete any or all of the grounds of appeal
, and to seek any just and fair relief.” 3. The appellant has also filed modified ground of appeal , which reads as under :-
3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as an unexplained investment being a purchase of immovable property.”
4. It is found that the instant appeal is filed with the delay of 194 days. The application for condonation of delay of 194 days in filing of this appeal has been filed online by the assessee. It was stated in the application that the assessee was NRI and due to the different day time in India and USA, the appellant could not communicate/contact with the previous tax consultant and, therefore, the appellant was unaware of the fact that the impugned order dated 17.07.2023 had been passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. However, as soon as the assessee came to know about the passing of such order, he immediately contacted another tax consultant Tribunal. It was accordingly submitted before the bench that the delay was unintentional and bona-fide and may kindly be condoned. Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the request of the assessee. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and accordingly, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits of the case.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and furnished his return of income on 20.06.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,08,729/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued to the assessee. The assessee has not responded to any of the above notices. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has purchased and sold immovable properties. Apart from the above sale and purchase transactions, he has also deposited cash in his bank accounts. Since the assessee remained absent, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte by determining the total income at Rs.2,06,83,929/- as against the Rs.5,08,729/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.2,01,75,200/- u/s 68 and 69 of the IT Act.
Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. It was submitted that the assessee was a NRI and due to difference in time zone in USA and India, the assessee was not in direct touch with his consultant in India and, therefore, could not know about the dates of hearing provided by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also submitted that the assessee was not in a habit of frequently checking the income tax site and due to all these circumstances, could not reply to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was sole prayer of the counsel of the assessee that if opportunity is given to the assessee he will submit proper reply along with supporting evidences and documents in support of grounds of appeal before LD CIT(A)/NFAC. Under the above facts of the case, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and provide one opportunity to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to explain his case.
8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same since the assessee never cooperated with the Department in any of the proceedings either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that admittedly the assessee never appeared either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and due to these reasons both the authorities below have passed ex-parte orders in absence of the assessee. It was the submission of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was NRI when first appeal order was passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and he was not available in India. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was not available in India at the relevant time & could not see the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly in the interest of justice we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a